









y 



^0 — 









yo, : 






^°-^. 


























^^^\ l^^" /\ \^i ^^^\ 

A.0 ^*>- ' o « , 

<>>. n'^ » " » - '^ 





•^^' 














•v.^"^ 









•v-o^ 



'bV 




BAPTIST 
FUNDAMENTALS 



By 

ERVIN F. LYON, Th.M.,D.D, 



Author of The Successful Young Woman 
Pastor First Baptist Church, 
San Angelo, Texas, 
June 1911— 



THE BAPTIST STANDARD PUBLISHING CO., 
Dallas, Texas 



/ 



k i^ 



^ 



Copyright, by 
BAPTIST STANDAED PUB. CO., 

Dallas, Texas. 




©C1A711200 

JUL -3 73. 



FOREWORD 



I 

^T^HIS treatise on the faith of Baptists is the result 
-■- of quiet study and investigation through the years 
on the part of the author. The study was first begun 
soon after leaving the Southern Baptist Theological 
Seminary some years ago, for the purpose mainly of 
satisfying the author's own mind, and incidentally to 
be able to offer help to others who might desire his 
assistance. 

Very recently Editor E. C. Eouth of the Baptist 
Standard, Dallas, Texas, requested the writer to pre- 
pare a series of articles for that publication, on **What 
Baptists Believe.'' The request was complied with, 
and for some four months the articles appeared con- 
secutively, and were given a hearty reception by many 
persons from different parts of the state and else- 
where. Many requests were made to the author that 
the articles be put into permanent form for the help 
they might afford to younger persons especially. This 
little book is the answer to those requests. 

If any are helped to better understanding of the 
doctrines of our Lord and Saviour, and thereby become 
better and truer followers of Him, the time and labor 
spent in the book's preparation will not be considered 
in vain. 

THE AUTHOR, 
San Angelo, Texas. 



1 



INTRODUCTION 

nPHE author of this book on *^ Baptist Fundamen- 
-^-tals/'— Pastor E. F. Lyon of the First Baptist 
Church, San Angelo, Texas, — has here given us a book 
that is not only distinctly informing and constructive, 
but is also exceedingly timely. He is nobly fitted for 
such a task as this, for he has long wrought in a con- 
stantly growing ministry, both with his voice and 
with his pen in helping to carry forward our great 
Master's cause, both at home and abroad. 

Every chapter in this book is on a subject of vital 
import, and the author marshals his facts and his 
arguments with unusual clarity and conviction of 
statement. He calls his readers back to a considera- 
tion of the central, vital, and fundamental contentions 
of our Baptist people. Every chapter is a discussion 
of some truth that is fundamentally vital. As one 
reads these vital chapters he thinks of the old Bible 
question: **If the foundations be destroyed, what can 
the righteous do?" 

The book should have a prompt and faithful read- 
ing by our Baptist people everywhere. It is especially 
suggested that wise use may be made of this book in 
The Study Classes, which are coming to mean so much 
in our churches. 

I bespeak for the book an immediately wide circu- 
lation, and have not a doubt that its message will be 
both temporally and permanently helpful. 

GEO. W. TRUETT, 
First Baptist Church, Dallas. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Who the Baptists Are 9 

II. The Deity 17 

III. Sin and Salvation 26 

IV. Security of the Believer 34 

V. A New Testament Church .... 42 

VI. Church Ordinances 49 

VII. Affusion 54 

VIII. Infant Baptism 67 

IX. Baptism — Continued 79 

X. The Lord^s Supper 93 

XI. Christian Missions 107 

XII. Education 114 

XIII. Baptists and Co-operation .... 121 

XIV. Baptists and Religious Liberty . . . 127 



BAPTIST FUNDAMENTALS 



CHAPTER I 

Who the Baptists Are 

HP HERE is no more fascinating story in all literature 
■*■ than the history of that great company of Christian 
people known as Baptists. They have the most glo- 
rious heritage of all religious denominations. While 
every Christian should be able to give a reason for the 
faith that he holds, it is particularly true that every 
Baptist should be able to give a reason for the faith 
that is within him. Could our Baptist people but know 
their own worthy lineage there would be far greater 
loyalty to Christ's cause in our own ranks and much 
less intimidation often on the part of others. It is 
always the informed Baptist who is strong and loyal 
in his alignments, as well as proud of his priceless 
heritage. 

At the very outset of our study of ^^ Baptist Funda- 
mentals/' let us bear in mind that we have blood- 
bought principles which distinguish us from all other 
Christians. We are not among those who can either 
think or say that one denomination is as good as an- 
other. Were this true, we would have no valid reason 

[9] 



for a separate existence, nor have any of those who 
do so say any valid reason for their separate existence. 
Baptists are either right or they are wrong. If right, 
they should hold tenaciously to their principles and 
propagate them to the ends of the earth. If wrong, 
they should get right or else surrender their separate 
existence and merge themselves with other denomina- 
tions. As to the latter alternative, there is not the 
slightest ground for such a possibility. History, lan- 
guage and Scripture unmistakably justify our dis- 
tinctive principles and our continued mission as true 
exponents of New Testament truth. 

The Baptist Name 

A name is indeed significant when it genuinely rep- 
resents honorable persons or noble principles. But too 
often good names are used by the unscrupulous, and 
hence become mere passwords for popular favor. Then 
it sometimes happens that worthy names are allowed 
to lose their original significance and thus represent a 
mere form rather than the true substance. To be 
sticklers for a name shorn of its original significance 
is worse than folly. In New Testament times the fol- 
lowers of our Lord were called believers, saints, dis- 
ciples, brethren, children, faithful, etc. A little later, 
some ten years after the death of Christ, they were 
called Christians, but three times only in the Scrip- 
tures is this word used, and it seems certain that at 
first this term was applied in derision. Finally, how- 
ever, it gained an honorable estate and was gladly 
worn by the disciples of Christ and is still so worn by 
all of his true followers. But even a casual observer 

[10] 



is now mindful of the fact that vast companies of per- 
sons and numberless organizations attach the name 
Christian when their lives and their tenets are far 
from the substance which the name in its original sig- 
nificance embodied. The Christian should truly repre- 
sent Christ in all the glorious things for which He 
stood, and when he fails to do this the name not only 
becomes worthless but positively hurtful. This is evi- 
denced by the many false cults which attach the 
**name'' as a mere label to make current the most 
glaring counterfeits were they stripped of the honor- 
able title falsely used. 

From apostolic days there have been disciples of 
Jesus who were true to the simplicity of Gospel teach- 
ing. At different periods and in different countries 
these followers were called by different names, and 
just when and where the name ** Baptist'' was applied 
is not certain, but was first applied in scorn by the ene- 
mies of those who refused to be bound by ecclesiastical 
powers and sought their faith from the New Testament 
alone. The name Baptist means literally ' ' baptizer, ' 'and 
was so applied to John the forerunner of Christ, thus 
it was flung at them because they would not accept 
the so-called baptism of the Roman church and kin- 
dred ecclesiastical organizations, but persistently in- 
sisted upon immersion alone as being at all valid. Bap- 
tism was soon corrupted by these state institutions, 
both as to form and meaning. First, it took on the 
form of regenerating efficacy, even though adminis- 
tered by immersion. Then the logical sequence was 
** infant baptism" and on to perversion of the form 
from immersion to sprinkling and pouring. All of this 

[11] 



the people who became known as Baptists rejected 
and insisted upon immersion, following a public pro- 
fession of faith, as the only scriptural baptism. In 
other words, a scriptural baptism was that of believers, 
and believers only, as prescribed and practiced in 
apostolic days. This the hierarchal authorities re- 
sented bitterly, in persecutions of ridicule, imprison- 
ments, banishments and even death, and among other 
things stigmatized our progenitors as '* Baptists'' be- 
cause of their consistent plea for and practice of the 
one baptism inaugurated by our Lord and practiced 
by His apostles. 

The name ''Baptist'' has now become a synonym of 
the most glorious principles ever enunciated by any 
company of Christians — in fact, the very principles 
given by our Lord Himself. While we did not choose 
the name for ourselves, we are now proud to wear it 
for the glorious tenets it embodies and the unparal- 
leled history it bears. To the informed person the 
name ** Baptist" not only signilBes an open Bible, a 
regenerate soul, a Gospel church, scriptural baptism, 
proper observance of the Lord's Supper, but soul lib- 
erty without reservation. 

Differentiating Principles 

That Baptists have differentiating principles, no 
well informed person will deny. It is true that much 
that only Baptists advocated in the past is now gladly 
received by others, but it is also true that these 
^'others" still retain ^ * extra-scriptural doctrines" as 
well as '' anti-scriptural" doctrines, which hinder 
them from giving to the world the Gospel of our Lord 

[12] 



in its simplicity and its purity. Upon Baptists, and 
Baptists alone, depends the task of giving to all man- 
kind, in each succeeding generation, the whole Gos- 
pel message, making free access to God for every be- 
liever, untrammeled by ecclesiasticism of any and all 
forms. 

Wherever Baptists have gone, an open Bible has 
been given to the masses, which, when allowed to 
speak to the seeking soul, always means death to hier- 
archies in both church and state, with the rise of de- 
mocracies in both of these realms. The doctrine of a 
regenerate church membership has always been dear 
to Baptists, and they are now almost exclusively its 
adherents. This is shown to be true from the fact 
that they reject baptism as having any part in regen- 
eration, however administered, and whether to infants 
or adultS'. Among all of the principal denominations 
of the world. Baptists stand alone on this doctrine. 
They alone insist upon a Gospel church, properly or- 
ganized and directed from its local affairs on to its 
part in world evangelization and training. Also they 
stand alone in the logical scriptural observance of the 
two ordinances of a New Testament church, which 
are baptism and the Lord's Supper. Then in soul lib- 
erty, the golden thread of freedom for all alike runs 
through all of our glorious history from the time the 
Son of man, who was the Son of God, brought this 
heaven-born gift down to mankind. (A special 
treatise is given on this subject further on in our 
study.) 

[131 



Distinctive Mission of Baptists 

Baptists unquestionably have a distinctive mission. 
With them is found the trust of holding forth the 
Bible as the true Word of God, maintaining its integ- 
rity and its binding authority for all time. The Bible, 
and the Bible alone, is to be always and ever the book 
of Baptists. They have ever been and are always to 
be the greatest defenders of this book as the inspired 
Word of God and the rule of faith and practice for 
all true followers of Jesus Christ. While others ruth- 
lessly ignore, or set aside much of the Bible as of no 
binding effect. Baptists insist that every precept is to 
be followed and every command to be obeyed. With 
them it is not a question of what men may deem neces- 
sary, but rather what does God's Word enjoin. Their 
faithfulness to the Scriptures has shown them to have 
less heresy among them and more unity than any other 
body of Christians. This is not an accident, but the 
result of faithful adherence to divine commands. 

With Baptists also rests the task of keeping clear 
from every sacerdotal taint the message of salvation 
and giving to the world a spiritual religion. They 
were the first to teach that all dying in infancy are 
saved. Not only are adult believers dying without 
baptism saved, but those dying in infancy, too, are 
saved without baptism. The world is still in need of 
emphasis on this doctrine, and it rests almost exclu- 
sively with Baptists to herald the message of salvation 
by grace alone, free from every form of sacerdotal- 

[14] 



ism, ordinance or works of any kind. *'By grace have 
ye been saved through faith, and that not of your- 
selves, it is the gift of God ; not of works, that no man 
should glory" (Ephesians 2:8-9). 

The corruption of the ordinances, baptism and the 
Lord's Supper has proved to be the greatest curse to 
the cause of Christianity. Wresting them from their 
original setting and perverting their meaning have 
made them magic charms in the hands of the ignorant 
and unscrupulous, rather than signs and symbols of 
the atoning work of the Saviour. They are not in- 
tended to procure either salvation nor to merit favor 
with God, but rather to point in beautiful symbol the 
meritorious work of the Lamb of Calvary. Baptism 
portrays death — the death of Christ as the atoning 
Lamb, also the death of the subject to the old life. 
And then it pictures resurrection to the new life in 
Christ, thereby becoming an outward expression of 
an inward experience. The Supper memorializes the 
sacrificial death of Jesus, bringing vividly before the 
communicant that ** without the shedding of blood 
there is no remission," and this blood is that shed on 
Calvary's Cross, which takes '^all our guilt away." 

In the matter of democracy. Baptists have always 
been and still are its true exponents. They stand for 
*Hhe priesthood of the believer," maintaining the 
right of each and every soul to approach God accord- 
ing to the dictates of his own conscience, without the 
intervention of extra-scriptural powers or binding ef- 
fects handed down by clergy or council or formulated 

[15] 



by decree or creed. They claim that there is no more 
valid reason or claim for hierarchy in church than in 
state. It is a noticeable fact that many of those who 
clamor loudest for democracy in civil affairs will most 
readily bow without protest their necks to the yoke 
of ecclesiasticism in religion. For this inconsistency 
Baptists will never stand. They steadily maintain that 
in its last analysis the state can be no freer than are 
the souls of men who make the state. Everywhere 
state hierarchies are found, they are propped up by 
ecclesiastical hierarchies, and in the same ratio that 
these ecclesiastical props fall away does the lordship 
of civil rulers diminish. This was strikingly observed 
by King James I when opposition to the episcopacy 
was maintained in Scotland. We hear his wail, *^No 
bishop no king,'' thus showing the close intimacy of 
ecclesiastical and state hierarchies. History, both re- 
ligious and secular, reveals the indisputable fact that 
civil democracies rise or fall as they wax or wane in 
the realm of religion. Let Baptists then never forget 
their noble contribution to democracy in the past and 
their continued mission for its advancement and main- 
tenance in the future. 



[16] 



CHAPTER II 

The Deity 

"DELIEP in a Supreme Being is the source of all re- 
-■-^ ligion. There can be no theology, and no divine 
worship apart from belief in God, or a god to whom 
is ascribed supernatural powers. No nation or tribe, 
however high or low, has ever been found without 
some sort of faith in a being, or beings upon whom 
they felt dependent for life and favor. True, many 
of these are pitiably crude, and often degrading, but 
all show that implanted nature of the human soul, 
which can be satisfied only in lifting helpless hands, 
and pleading voice to some supposed higher than 
earthly power. 

Baptists, to be sure, are concerned for themselves 
in having a proper knowledge of the true and living 
God, as revealed in Christ, and for others in bringing 
them to know and serve Him. It is a sad fact that 
many of those who call themselves Christians have no 
clear conception of the true God. For this reason the 
world is full of vagaries concerning Him, and of false 
cults in matters of conduct and worship. 

How God Reveals Himself 

The Bible, known as the Holy Scriptures, is the one 
Book wherein God has revealed Himself to mankind, 

[17] 

2— May 23 



and here alone are we to seek for our fuller knowl- 
edge and direction pertaining to Him. While nature 
and our inner conscious experience will assist, they 
alone will not suffice. Right conceptions of God are 
never found apart from the Bible, as the history of all 
the past bears witness. Individuals and nations rise 
or fall according to their conceptions of the Deity. 
When man fashions his own God he always makes 
sorry work of it. When he lets God fashion him he 
invariably comes forth a new creature in ''the image 
of Him who created him.'' 

No effort will be made in this treatise to deal in pro- 
fuse philosophical, or theological terms, but rather to 
present such cardinal truths as will help give that 
conception of God that Christians generally need to 
have. It is indeed impossible to perfectly define God, 
and yet we can have a real knowledge of Him through 
the revelation He has given us in creation, in His 
Word, and in our own hearts and lives. 

Space here necessarily forbids extended Scripture 
references, so these shall be brief, yet to the point. 
First of all let it be clearly understood that God is a 
person, and not a mere impersonal influence. From 
Gen. 1:1, and on through the whole Bible, with the 
single exception of the book of Esther, the personal- 
ity of God is revealed. He creates, sees, acts, speaks, 
directs men and nations, blesses, curses, exercises prov- 
idential care, hears and answers prayer, and in every 
way functions as a personal Being. No Bible reader 
of ordinary intelligence will fail to learn that God is 

[18] 



the most vital and living personality in all the uni- 
verse. And thus it is that His creatures are moved to 
pray, not to an abstract idea, or a finely woven theory, 
but to the living God. As to substance, Jesus tells us 
(John 4:24) that '^God is a Spirit,'' and thus cannot 
be thought of as having the form of man, nor of dwell- 
ing ^4n temples made with hands," nor are we ^Ho 
think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or 
stone, or graven by art and device of man." With 
this conception of God idolatry completely breaks 
down, while spiritual worship alone engages us and 
brings us to know Him, and fills and satisfies our souls. 

The Bible teaches that God is the creator of all 
things (see Gen., first chapter). *^In the beginning 
God created the heavens and the earth." *^I am the 
Lord that maketh all things" (Isaiah 44:24). ^^For 
every house is builded by some one; but he that 
buildeth all things is God" (Heb. 3:4) — and so on 
through the Scriptures the accounts of God as crea- 
tor are unmistakable. And as to the origin of man, 
the Bible account is sufficient to settle the question for 
the Christian. *^And Jehovah God formed man out 
of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nos- 
trils the breath of life ; and man became a living soul ' ' 
(Gen. 2:7). This is the all-sufficient and final proof 
for all persons who accept the Bible as the inspired 
Word of God. Baptists of all others have their faith 
and hope grounded in this Book. 

As to the nature of God, He is holy, — *^He is a holy 
God" (Josh. 24:19); He is a God of love,— '^ God is 

[19] 



I 



love" (1 John 4:16); also He is just,— '^For all His 
ways are justice: a God of faithfulness and without 
iniquity, just and right is He'' (Deut. 32:4). Thus it 
is that God rewards and punishes, for there can be 
no intelligent love apart from the sense of justice. All 
moral law is grounded in God as its author, and who 
is Himself the embodiment of all moral perfections. 
Punishment for sin is not inconsistent with His love, 
for justice is the complement of love, and God is both 
loving and just. Also God is self -existent, infinite, and 
eternal, thereby free from all imperfections. He is 
clothed with omnipotence, or all power; omniscient, 
or having all knowledge and wisdom; and omnipres- 
ent, or capable of exercising His infinite power at all 
points in all realms at the same time. *' Whither shall 
I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from 
thy presence?" (Ps. 139:7, — see verses 1-18). Per- 
haps an attempt for a concise definition of our con- 
ception of God would not be out of place here, and 
that of Dr. A. H. Strong is doubtless as good as any 
one is likely to find : * * God is the infinite and perfect 
Spirit in whom all things have their source, support 
and end." 

The Deity of Christ 

The Messianic promise runs like a scarlet thread 
through the entire Old Testament. He is called ^*Im- 
manuel," — God with us (Isa. 7:14). Also, '* Wonder- 
ful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince 
of Peace" (Isa. 9:6). Thus prophecy portrays Him 

[20] 



as the God-man, and thus He announced Himself 
when He came, and thus must He still be regarded to 
the end of time. 

Upon the deity of Jesus Christ is our holy Christian 
religion based, and when those who wear the name 
** Christian'' cease to stand upon this one foundation 
they will cease to have a religion from God. It may 
become a philosophy, or a school of ethics, but cer- 
tainly not the religion of Christ. All the triumphs 
of Baptists in the past have been gained by acceptance 
of Jesus as God manifest in the flesh. He was con- 
ceived by the Holy Spirit, bom of the Virgin Mary, 
lived ^ sinless life, and announced Himself as the Son 
of God. All of His claims and all of His works rested 
upon this foundation. For a period of three years He 
based His earthly mission upon this claim, inculcated 
it into the minds of His apostles, as well as all of the 
disciples He won to Himself. He was crucified upon 
Calvary's Cross as the Lamb of God as an offering for 
sin. He rose from the dead, ascended to the heavens 
whence He came, sat down at the right hand of the 
Father, and **ever liveth to make intercession for us." 
Discard the deity of Christ and the very foundation of 
our faith is gone, and the appeal to a sin-cursed world 
is gone with it. One of three things is true about 
Christ: He was either insane, or an impostor, or else 
He was what He claimed to be, the Son of the living 
God. Neither an insane being, nor an impostor could 
enunciate such sublime principles, or start such a 
movement for the happiness and well-being of the 

[21] 



I 



human race, and change the channel of human thought 
and history throughout all generations. The only 
choice left is to accept His claim as the one who came 
from the bosom of the Father, and hath for us *'full 
atonement made/' As New Testament Christians, 
Baptists accept in full the deity of Christ, His miracu- 
lous birth, His sinless life, atoning death, resurrection 
from the grave, ascension on high. His intercessional 
work, and His promised return to earth. Upon these 
points the Scripture unmistakably speaks, and our 
eternal hope certainly rests. Jesus is shown from the 
Bible to possess the attributes of God, among which 
are self-existence, immutability, truth, love, holiness, 
eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. 
Also the works of God are ascribed to Him, as well as 
equality with God, and He is to be honored and wor- 
shipped as God. Undeniably the Bible portrayal of 
Christ must be discarded before His deity can be dis 
credited. Baptists then, of all people are to rest their 
claim, and find their eternal hope in the deity of Jesus 
Christ. 

The Deity of the Holy Spirit 

Equally true is it that the Holy Spirit is a person, 
and is spoken of as God. Let it be stated unhesitatingly, 
and realized fully that the Holy Spirit is a person and 
not a mere influence. To Him are ascribed both the 
attributes and works of God. He is to receive honor 
due only to God, and is associated on a footing of 
equality with God, as noted in the baptismal formula, 

[22] 



and in the apostolic benedictions. He knows, speaks, 
searches, reveals, testifies, convinces, guides, creates, 
inspires, intercedes, guides the church, and works 
miracles. 

Then the Holy Spirit is affected as a person by acts 
of others, such as grieved, vexed, blasphemed, and 
against Him alone can the unpardonable sin be com- 
mitted. Again, He manifested His personality in dis- 
tinct and visible form from the Father, and the Son, 
at the baptism of Jesus. There can indeed be no 
denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit if the 
Bible account of Him is to have any weight what- 
ever. Everywhere was the Holy Spirit present with 
Jesus, imbuing Him with power for His Messianic 
work, and through His power was Jesus raised from 
the tomb. He convicts the heart of sin, regenerates 
it, and guides it into the truth. He purifies and keeps 
the believer amidst temptation, and all earthly 
struggle. The Spirit works directly with the individ- 
ual heart, rather than through any ecclesiastical body, 
or hierarchy of any form. 

Baptists are particularly interested in the doctrine 
of the Holy Spirit, because of their stand for a regen- 
erate church membership, their individualism, local 
church government, and open Bible, and the right of 
private interpretation. Thus they are especially de- 
pendent upon the Holy Spirit for direction in all their 
work. They should ever seek His blessed presence, 
and so strive to live as never to grieve Him. 

[23] 



The Trinity 

The term '^Trinity'' is nowhere used iji the Bible, 
but the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught. The 
Godhead consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — 
three distinct personalities, but one in nature, essence 
or being. This is not a speculative, but practical doc- 
trine. The Scriptures show it to be the great under- 
lying truth of the whole Christian revelation. Here 
we have God the Father as the author of Eedemp- 
tion, God the Son who achieves Redemption, and God 
the Holy Spirit who applies Redemption to lost souls, 
thereby bringing them into the glorious light and lib- 
erty of salvation. 

Since God is infinite, and man is finite, we cannot 
fully grasp the interior economy of God respecting the 
Trinity. And while it is mysterious, yet it is not ab- 
surd, for a mystery is some fact comprehended only as 
far as God chooses to reveal it. He has certainly re- 
vealed the fact of the Trinity, making the doctrine in- 
telligible in various relations, and modes of outward 
manifestations, but unintelligible to finite minds in its 
interior nature. 

Upon the doctrine of the Trinity the Christian re- 
ligion rests, for if there be no Trinity, there is no 
deity of Christ, nor deity of the Holy Spirit. With- 
out the doctrine of the Trinity nothing is left but 
merely a natural religion, with the far-away deism, 
which tends to resolve itself into the eternity of mat- 
ter and ultimately into pantheism. Baptists are un- 

[241 



mistakably Trinitarians, believing in God the Father, 
God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and whenever 
this doctrine is abandoned the chief articles of the 
Christian religion, as the atonement, regeneration, etc., 
disappear, and we are left with a lifeless system of 
philosophy, or code of ethics. The history of the 
triumphs of Christianity but confirms the vitality of 
the believer's faith in the Trinity. Let it ever be 
clear to all our people that Baptists are not and can- 
not be Unitarians, and that it is equally clear that 
Unitarians are not Baptists. 



[25] 



CHAPTER III 

Sin and Salvation 

HPHE Bible certainly teaches the reality of that some 
"*• thing called sin, and the experience of the human 
race the world over in all generations confirms its 
reality. That there is a discord in the soul of man 
destroying perfect harmony with God and our fellow- 
men, no sane person will deny. It is a fact which 
confronts us on every hand from the time of accounta- 
bility on to the grave. The Bible tells us this aliena 
tion from God and the disturbances with one another 
are caused by sin, which began with the disobedience 
of our first parents in the Garden of Eden and through 
them has been transmitted to all generations of men. 

Sin is failure to conform to the moral law of God, 
in action, disposition and state. The words ordinarily 
translated ''sin,'' or used synonymously mean liter- 
ally ''missing the mark, failure, or coming short." 
This applies to dispositions and states as well as to 
acts. Regarding the origin of man's sinful nature, 
no light is afforded save from the scriptural account 
of the voluntary act of our first parents in turning 
away from God, thereby corrupting themselves and 
coming under the penalties of the law. This account 
is neither mythological nor allegorical, but historical 
(See Genesis 3:1-7, also II Corinthians 11:3.) This 

[26] 



account connects the origin of sin with the creation 
of free and intelligent beings given the power of con- 
trary choice. That man chose evil, the Scripture un- 
doubtedly teaches and history universally confirms. 

The consequences of sin are everywhere manifest. 
It has been said truly that ''when man fell he fell 
all over.'' He was totally depraved, which does not 
mean that he became as bad as he could possibly be, 
but that every element of his being is corrupted by 
the fall, intellect, feeling, heart and will, and that all 
mankind since has been born in a state of depravity, 
guilt and condemnation. After the fall man's nature 
became such that he uniformly sins, this being as cer- 
tain as that he lives. He exercises his moral powers 
in transgression as surely as he begins to speak and 
act, and this depravity is such that it begins to show 
itself from the earliest volitions of childhood. 

The Results of Sin 

The results of sin show themselves among all gen- 
erations from Eden's expulsive hour down to the pres- 
ent. Hence there must have been a common source 
from which sin has been transmitted by heredity to 
all the race. This is proven by the facts which show 
the unity of mankind, together with the moral and 
spiritual history of the race, as well as by Scripture 
teaching. (See Romans 3:10-18.) 

There naturally follows then the various conse- 
quences of sin as guilt and penalty with their corol- 
lary effects. Guilt is the dinner's ill-desert on account 

[27] 



of his sin. This arrays him against divine justice and 
brings him into personal opposition to a personal God, 
thereby taking the form of self-condemnation by a 
sense of God's disapproval. Then follows penalty, 
which is God's reaction against sin. Men reap what 
they sow in both material and spiritual realms, 
whether through transgression of the law of nature or 
the more direct action of God in His punishment of 
the sinner. Let it ever be remembered that all pen- 
alty against sin is based ultimately on the nature of 
God's holiness. The essential quality of God's right- 
eousness moves Him to punish sin because it is sin 
and His nature of necessity reacts against it, which 
is the prime motive for punishing the sinner. To be 
sure, punishment reacts for the good of both the guilty 
sinner and for society, of which he forms an impor- 
tant part, but we must never lose sight of the fact 
that punishment is first and foremost because of the 
essential righteousness of God, which necessitates the 
sinner's punishment. 

The effects of sin are manifest all along the path- 
way of life on the part of the sinner himself and his 
associates. Not only are his own powers depleted, his 
peace and happiness destroyed, but society itself is 
degraded as a result of sin. Every prison house and 
every court of law is made necessary because of the 
disturbing and destroying effects of sin. But deplor- 
able as these conditions are, they are not the worst 
effects of sin. Death, both spiritual and physical, is 
the ultimate goal of sin. Our physical frame is shot 

[28] 



through with the seeds of death because of sin. Every 
deathbed and every grave in all the world are but 
trophies of sin. God's warning to man as noted in 
Genesis 2:17, *^In the day that thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die," has been made effective in all 
generations. Scripture confirms this fact in Romans 
5:12, where we are told *^as through one man sin en- 
tered into the world, and death through sin and so 
death passed unto all men, for that all sinned." 

The chief penalty of sin, however, is spiritual death, 
which is the separation of the soul from God, both 
for time and eternity. When the soul is devoid of 
spiritual life, it is then spiritually dead, thus separated 
from God, and in a permanent state of unbelief and 
sin. The culmination and completion of spiritual 
death is the ** second death," and those who so die 
are the ones on the left hand to whom Jesus will 
finally say, ** Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eter- 
nal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels" 
(Matthew 25:41.) Baptists are not to shrink from the 
Scripture doctrine of sin, nor cease to warn men of 
its awful effects, and to urge them to *'flee from the 
wrath to come." 

Salvation 

The very fact of sin makes salvation necessary if 
man is to have any hope of rescue. Also the love and 
mercy of God are involved in the doctrine of salva- 
tion. Apart from a knowledge of sin, there can be 
no true expression of the love of God. When man 

129] 



i 



becomes aware of the deadly effects of sin he is pre 
pared for a remedy for sin in the person of a Saviour. 
The provision for salvation in Christ is the highest |l 
expression of God's love to man. '^Greater love hath 
no man than this, that a man lay down his life for 
friends/' and **God commendeth his love toward us 
in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. ' ' > 
Thus it is that ' ' God so loved the world that He gave • 
His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on 
Him should not perish but have eternal life.'' Let it ' 
be remembered that it was man who changed and not 
God. It was man who forsook God and not God who 
forsook man. 

It was because of the exercise of the power of choice 
that man fell when his choice was to disobey God. 
This change was in man and not in God, which caused 
the disharmony between God and man. And as soon 
as man alienated himself from God, the love of God 
revealed itself in the plan of redemption which cul- 
minated in its highest expression on the Cross. 

From the sad hour of expulsion from Eden's por- 
tals and on through all the wanderings and sinnings 
of the race of man God's love has ever spent itself 
to woo man back to paths of holiness and rectitude. 
The priestly and sacrificial system was to inspire hope 
of some way of pardon and access to God. Prophecy 
was but foregleams of the dawning day whose 
meridian splendor would reveal the Lamb of God, who 
taketh away the sin of the world. Before the Cross 
pardon was granted upon the basis of Christ's atone- 

[301 



ment to be made, whUe since the Cross pardon is given 
on the basis of Christ's atonement that has been made. 

Salvation then centers in Christ and Christ alone, 
and ^^in none other is there salvation" (Acts 4:12). 
*'For there is one God, one mediator also between 
God and men. Himself a man, Christ Jesus, who gave 
Himself a ransom for all" (I Timothy 2:5, 6). ''For 
the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which 
was lost" (Luke 19:10). ''Even as the Son of Man 
came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and 
to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). 
"Being justified by His blood, shall we be saved from 
the wrath of God through Him" (Romans 5:9). 
"Having made peace through the blood of His cross" 
(Colossians 1:20). "In whom we have our redemp- 
tion through His blood, the forgiveness of our tres- 
passes according to the riches of His grace" (Ephe- 
sians 1:7). "Apart from the shedding of blood there 
is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22). "The blood of 
Jesus, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 
1:7). It will be seen by every candid reader that the 
Scriptures make it unmistakably clear that salvation 
centers not only in the person of Christ, but in His 
atoning death on the Cross. There is no escape from 
this conclusion if the teachings of the Scripture have 
any valid meaning. The word shows that God is the 
author of salvation, and that it was born out of His 
unchanging love. "For God so loved the world that 
He gave His only begotten Son." Then it is shown 
that salvation is procured by Christ in His death on 

[31] 



the Cross — **We have our redemption through Hisj 
blood," while the Holy Spirit applies salvation. **Ex-j 
cept a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God'' (John 3:5). **Forj 
the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me 
free from the law of sin and death" (Eomans 6:2). 

The Bestowal of Salvation 

Christ's atonement is inexhaustible and is sufficient 
for all men, but all men do not receive its benefits foi 
the reason that all will not believe. **Ye will not come 
to me that ye may have life" (John 5:40). '^He that 
believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that 
believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath 
of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). '^Him that 
cometh to me I will in nowise cast out" (John 6:37). 
Salvation follows the exercise of the soul's powers in 
repentance and faith, by which act, under the opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit Christ is received. Then con-; 
version results with all the attendant benefits of sal- 
vation, giving the believer the legal standing and 
rights of Christ, for there is no condemnation to them ^ 
that are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). | 

Baptists believe in toto the Scripture teaching that | 
salvation is a gift of God and in no way dependent 
upon sacrament, ordinance or good works. **By grace j 
have ye been saved through faith ; and that not of 
yourselves ; it is the gift of God ; not of works, that j 
no man should glory" (Ephesians 2:8, 9). Practically 
speaking, Baptists stand alone upon the Bible doctrine 

[32] 



of salvation by grace, separate and apart from sacra- 
mentalism in its various phases. Baptism does not 
save, the Lord's Supper does not save, works do not 
save, nor does the church save, but repentance toward 
God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For adults 
salvation is by grace through personal faith in Christ 
as the atoning Lamb of God who taketh away the sin 
of the world. Infants are saved by the atoning work 
of Christ without the personal act of faith as they are 
incapable of fulfilling this condition. (See II Samuel 
12:23, Luke 18:15-17.) Since without personal act of 
infants they inherited the corruption of sin from 
Adam, it logically follows that without ability to exer- 
cise personal faith, salvation is provided for them in 
Christ, since He died for all. Baptists believe that 
baptism follows salvation full and complete, it does 
not precede it, and in no way procures it, nor do any 
other external means procure it. **The blood of Jesus 
Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin,'' hence 
nothing is left for any sort of external rite or cere- 
mony as pertains to bringing the soul into saving re- 
lationship with Christ. Here Baptists have ever taken 
their stand and this doctrine they will proclaim until 
Jesus comes again. 



[33] 



CHAPTER IV 

Security of the Believer 

T) APTISTS believe that once saved, always saved, oi 
-*-^ once in grace, always in grace. This refutes the 
claim made by many that a child of God may ^^fal 
from grace'' and thus be lost. Baptists hold that 
those alone who are true believers endure to the end 
and that these do always so endue. The doctrine of 
salvation, full and complete, separate and apart from 
works, ordinance or the intervention of ecclesiastical 
systems, is strictly a Christian doctrine and enunciated 
nowhere else other than in the New Testament. True 
the Old Testament typifies the sacrifice of the aton- 
ing Lamb, but these sacrifices had to be offered from 
time to time for the guilty sinner, thus requiring on 
his part the constant performance of making these 
offerings through the ministry of the priesthood. All 
of this found its culmination in the sacrifice of Christ 
on the Cross, that henceforth ^^he should not offer 
himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy 
place year by year with blood not his own — but now 
once at the end of the ages hath he been manifestec 
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb 
9:25,26). 

It will be noted then that provision for salvation 
was fully made by the death of Christ, hence nothing 

[34] 



for its completeness to be added on the part of man, 
either in individual debts he must pay or through 
priestly intervention that he must seek. *^For it is 
impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should 
take away sin" (Heb. 10:4), but ^^we have been sancti- 
fied through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 
once for all" (Heb. 10:10). It is clear then that com- 
plete salvation is provided without any contribution 
on the part of man. It is the gift of God. 

Salvation Is Secure 

It is equally clear that salvation is made secure for 
the believer, not only full and complete, but forever 
irrevocable when once the soul is brought into regen- 
erate touch with the Saviour of Men. **Who by the 
power of God are guarded through faith unto a sal- 
vation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet. 
1:5). Jesus Himself assures us again and again that 
upon the believer He bestows eternal life. '* Verily, 
verily I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and 
believeth Him that sent me, hath eternal life and 
Cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of 
death into life" (John 5:24). If language means any- 
thing at all there can be but one conclusion here. 
Jesus says that the life He bestows is '^eternal," and 
further that no condemnation follows. This states the 
case clearly, and if one has eternal life he certainly 
cannot lose it, for if he could, then it would not be 
eternal. This one passage should be enough to set- 
tle the matter if one is to count the meaning of words 

[35] 



for anything. But we need not stop here as there are 
many other scriptures to bear out the one quoted 
above. Note John 10 :27, 28 : ^'My sheep hear my voice 
and I know them, and they follow me and I give unto 
them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no 
one shall snatch them out of my hand. ' ' Observe here 
as before that the Saviour is speaking, and surely He 
ought to be authority. Here the believers are follow- 
ers, and the recipients of ^^eternar' life. Then Jesus 
further elaborates by saying ^Hhey shall never per- 
ish.'' Surely then they cannot fall away, for how 
could they when the Redeemer says emphatically that 
they cannot. But the word does not stop here, as the 
reader will note: ^'And no one shall snatch them out 
of my hand." This seems to be a sort of reiteration 
of what He has already said, that proper emphasis 
may be placed on His statement. Now if there is no 
power to snatch them out of His hand, how can they 
fall away and perish? There's no power in earth or 
hell strong enough to annul the words of Jesus Christ, 
and hence His words stand here as well as everywhere 
else. 

The whole truth is, just as the Saviour has said, the 
believer *'hath eternal life," and not for a day or a 
year, but forever, *^and they shall never perish, and 
no one shall snatch them out of His hand." This 
should be enough to satisfy every one who has really 
taken Jesus at His word. We see also another strong 
emphasis on this teaching by the Apostle Paul in Rom. 
8:3'8, 39: ^'For I am persuaded that neither death, 

[36] 



nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things pres- 
ent, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor 
depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate 
us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our 
Lord." 

The reader will notice that these words are not hazy 
or in any way clouded, but are clear and strong, from 
the Saviour as well as from His Apostles, and there is 
not even the shadow of reason for the trustful soul 
to question them. When Jesus says we are saved, and 
saved forever, that ought to be enough, and we should 
not insult Him by doubting His plain words. 

The very nature of eternal life necessitates its con- 
tinuance to eternity from what is here given, i. e., the 
life Christ gives the believer is endless life. '^And 
the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, 
and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath 
life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 
These things have I written unto you, that ye may 
know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that 
believe in the name of the Son of God" (I John 5:11- 
13). 

The Apostates 

On the part of some there is often an apparent fall- 
ing away as we have all observed, and here is where 
many are confused. "We read of some Bible charac- 
ters who renounced Jesus, and all about us are those 
who made profession of faith, and gave themselves 
diligently to religious activity for a time, then turned 

[37] 



away. The question is then asked, *'Were not these 
persons once saved?" The Scripture covers these 
cases with such certainty that we need not doubt, if 
the Word of God is allowed to speak. Among the 
twelve Apostles there was one who betrayed Jesus, 
and the question is still asked if Judas was ever a 
saved man. Jesus answers this in John 6:70, *'Did I 
not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 
Then in His prayer (John 17:12), He further says, 
referring to Judas, ^*and not one of them perished but 
the son of perdition." It is shown also that all of 
those who are lost were never at any time saved. In 
Matthew 7 :23 reference is made to those who lay claim 
to salvation by their good deeds done in the name of 
the Lord, but Jesus says, ^'Then will I profess unto 
them, I never knew you ; depart from me ye that work 
iniquity." It is interesting here to note the Greek 
particles, ^^oudepote," which literally mean *^ never at 
any time," so that there was never a time when the 
finally lost were saved. 

Yet again look at I John 2:19: ' * They went out from 
us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of 
us, they would have continued with us ; but they went 
out, that they might be made manifest that they all 
are not of us." This explains why some persons who 
once seemed to be Christians fall away. They were 
only seed that fell by the wayside, or in thorns, or 
upon stony ground; just that and nothing more. 
Many a person gets into the church by mistake, but 
he does not bear fruits of righteousness, and was 

[38] 



never converted. The Apostle Peter gives a very vivid 
description of such persons in his second epistle, sec- 
ond chapter. Then he sums up their case in verse 
twenty-two, ^ ' The dog turning to his own vomit again, 
and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the 
mire." It will be noted that nowhere in the Scrip- 
ture is a child of God spoken of as a *'dog," or as 
** swine," but they are spoken of as ^* sheep." Those 
who are said to fall away do so because they have 
the swine nature, which was never changed. Sepa- 
rate a sheep from the flock and it will constantly mani- 
fest a strong desire to get back, but when a swine 
is separated from the herd it is perfectly content to 
remain alone and wallow in the mire. Thus the true 
nature of the heart strikingly manifests itself on the 
part of the individual when separated from God's peo- 
ple. The *' sheep" will desire to get back, while the 
** swine" will rail against the church, and find his 
chief joy by wallowing in the mire of sin. 

The only thing that a saved person may lose is the 
joy of his salvation, but not salvation itself. David 
did this and as a penitent confessed his sin and 
earnestly prayed for the restoration of the *^joy of 
salvation" (Psalms 51:12). Peter had a similar ex- 
perience when he denied his Lord and his remorse 
was so great that * * he went out and wept bitterly. ' ' A 
child of God can and often does lose the joy of his 
salvation because of unfaithfulness, but he, like David 
and Peter, will find himself in such misery of soul 
that he will not continue in sin, but seek cleansing 

[39] 



and restoration of the joy of salvation which always 
comes to the penitent believer's heart. 

Fruits of the Doctrine 

It is often said by those who reject belief in the 
** Security of the Believer," that such a doctrine dis- 
courages carefulness in right living from day to day. 
This comes from a false conception of the true na- 
ture of the child of God. Each seed brings forth after 
its kind, and so with each life. In Christ one is a 
*'new creature," and henceforth receives his suste- 
nance, his hope and his inspiration from Christ. **For 
we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for 
good works" (Eph. 2:10). The child of God works 
not to be saved, but because he is saved. An apple 
tree bears apples not that it may become an apple 
tree, but because it is an apple tree, and so it is with 
the fruit borne by the Christian, it is the nature of 
regenerate souls to bear fruits of righteousness. The 
professing Christian who bears no fruit for Christ 
might well re-examine the foundations of his faith. 
**A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither 
can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Not every 
one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into 
the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of 
my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:18-21). 
The evidence of the saved state is given mainly by 
continuous growth in grace and in the knowledge of 
Christ. 

Again, we find great comfort in the doctrine of the 

[40] 



believer's security. It reveals the unchanging love 
of God for his children. It would seem hard to love 
God were He to own us today and then disown us 
tomorrow. Then we would live in constant fear lest 
we might die during some period of apostacy and be 
lost, if there is no security of the believer. How much 
better to be able to rest where Paul rested, **I know 
Him whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He 
is able to guard that which I have committed unto 
Him against that day'' (2 Timothy 1:12). Baptists 
believe in the '* Security of the Believer," because it 
is granted in God's promise and grace, and not de- 
pendent upon what frail man can himself be or do, 
** Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be 
justified in his sight" (Romans 3:20), and **We 
reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart 
from the works of the law" (Romans 3:28), Then 
those that believe in the Son hath eternal life, ''and 
they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them 
out of His hand." 



[41] 



CHAPTER V ^ 

A New Testament Church, Its Meaning 

T^HE term ** church" refers of course to a particulai 
-*- company of properly organized believers, or con- 
gregation, and not to a house or building. The wore 
used in the New Testament for ** church'' comes from 
the Greek, ^'ecclesia'' and means *^a gathering or 
assembly of people," who are now baptized believers 
in Christ. In a few instances it appears to refer to 
all regenerate persons in all times and ages, both in 
heaven and on earth, *^Thou art Peter and upon this 
rock I will build my church and the gates of hades 
shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). ''The 
general assembly and church of the first born, who are 
enrolled in heaven" (Heb. 12:23). Yet other passages 
give the same idea. The discussion here, however, wil 
have to do mainly with the church as a visible loca 
body or congregation. 

A gospel church may be defined as a company of 
saved persons, voluntarily banded together in accord 
with the laws of Christ to the end that His kingdom 
may be fully established on earth. Elaboration upon 
this definition reveals a number of important things. 
First, Christ is Lord of the church since it exists inli 
obedience to His commands and has no other mission 
than that of carrying out His will. Then the two 

[42] 



ordinances baptism and the Lord's Supper are to be 
administered in their proper order, the new life in 
Christ to be cultivated, discipline is to be maintained, 
and the gospel to be propagated to the ends of the 
earth. 

Churches Separate 

Baptists believe that Scriptural churches are sepa- 
rate and distinct organizations. Each church is demo- 
cratic and autonomous in its government, thereby free 
and independent. No church, however strong, has any 
authority over another church however weak. Nor 
has any group of churches authority over others, re- 
gardless of their strength or weakness. There is no 
ecclesiasticism of any sort revealed in the New Testa- 
ment in the government of Christ's church. All refer- 
ences to them imply that they were separate and dis- 
tinct companies of believers with a common hope and 
a common purpose, to be sure, but with a separate 
existence so far as the management of their own local 
affairs be concerned. When the word for church is 
employed in the singular, it usually refers to a partic- 
ular company of believers in a given place, as ^'the 
church which was in Jerusalem" Acts 8:1. ^*Now 
there were at Antioch in the church," etc. (Acts 13:1). 
''Unto the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 
Cor. 1:2 and a number of other references), or it 
refers to the whole number of Christ's redeemed con- 
sidered collectively. There is no Scripture warrant 
for such terms as ''The Church of England," the 

[43] 



1 



*' Church of Scotland/' or the church of any other 
country as a whole. '*So the churches were strength- 
ened in the faith" (Acts 16:5). Paul speaks of ^'all the 
churches of the Gentiles'' (Rom. 16:4). Again, **And 
so ordain I in all the churches (1 Cor. 7:17). Then 
in speaking of his many difficulties and labors, he 
seems to reach the climax when he says, '* Besides 
those things that are without, there is that which 
presseth upon me daily, anxiety for all the churches" 
(2 Cor. 11:2*8). In his Galatian letter he says, *'unto 
the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2). And many other 
passages too numerous to mention here. As Scriptural 
churches there can be no such thing as the *^ Baptist 
Church of the United States," or the ** Baptist Church 
of Texas," nor of any other country as a whole where 
a plurality of local churches exist. These separate 
organizations may and should co-operate in the com- 
mon task of carrying on Christ's work in all parts of 
the world, but even this is purely voluntary on their 
part and in no way compulsory from any ecclesiasti- 
cal source. Each church is free to co-operate or not, 
as it may choose, and only Christ, the Head of His 
churches, has any compelling power. 

Church Organization 

The Scripture gives no minute account of how any 
particular church was organized. We know, however, 
that each church was composed of those who had 
owned Christ as both Saviour and Lord, by repentance 
and faith, followed by baptism. *'They then that re- 

[44] 



ceived his word were baptized ; and there were added 
unto them in that day about three thousand souls. 
And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's teach- 
ing and fellowship and the breaking of bread and the 
prayers'' (Acts 2:41, 42). See also Rom. 6:1-4 and 
10:9. It is evident also that applicants for member- 
ship were passed upon by the church itself, else there 
could have been no organized body with necessary 
powers to act for the church's welfare. See Acts 9 :26. 
The right to receive or reject members necessarily pre- 
ceded the right to discipline and exclude members, else 
how could one be excluded from a church into which 
he had never been received? **But as it is, I wrote 
unto you not to keep company, if any man that is 
named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an 
idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extor- 
tioner ; with such an one, not to eat. For what have I 
to do with judging them that are without? Do not 
ye judge them that are within ? Put away the wicked 
man from among yourselves" (1 Cor. 5:11-13). ''Now 
we commend you brethren, in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every 
brother that walketh disorderly" (2 Thess. 3:6>. This 
clearly indicates organization which necessitates some 
method of passing upon those received into the organi- 
zation as well as those excluded from it. 

Church Ordinances 

A New Testament church has two ordinances and 
only two. These are baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

[45] 



{A special treatise is given on each of these further 
on in our study). Baptism is the first ordinance of 
the church and the last act on the part of the believers 
which admits them into full church fellowship. Bap- 
tism follows salvation but precedes observance of the 
Memorial Supper, and is properly performed but once 
on the part of each believer. 

The Lord's Supper is the next ordinance of a Scrip- 
tural church and is to be observed from time to time 
in the church, by its members who have observed the 
first ordinance, and by these only. The Supper may 
be observed at stated times as the church shall decide. 
^^For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, 
ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come'' (1 Cor. 
11:26). The point is that whenever the supper is 
observed, whether frequently or not, it is to be done 
in the right way, and for the right purpose. 

Church Officers 

A New Testament church has two sets of officers, 
and only two. These are bishops, or elders, or pas- 
tors, and deacons. There are no gradations or or- 
ders of church officers, such as taught by Roman Cath- 
olics and most other pedobaptist bodies, mentioned 
anywhere in the New Testament. On the contrary, 
the Scriptures clearly teach that there are no such 
gradations. Bishop, elder and pastor are but different 
designations for the same office. This is clearly 
proven by the fact that the words are used inter- 
changeably or synonymously (see Acts 20:17), where 

[46] 



Paul »6iid« to ^'EpyienuH and called t4:> him tlxe elder* 
of the church/' Then in verfiye 28, he upeaks of the^e 
game persons as ''bishopB to feed the church of the 
Lord/' In Titus 1:5 Paul again says, ^^and appoint 
'elders' in every city as I gave thee charge." Then 
after some of their qualifications are noted in verse 
niXy he proceeds with yet other qualifications in verse 
geven, and uses the term ''bishop," referring to iden- 
tically the same office. Peter in his fir*st epistle (5:1, 
2) exhorts his fellow elders to '*Tend the flock of God 
— exercising the oversight," etc., which is clearly the 
work of the bishop, and shows elder and bishop to be 
one and the same in official duties. Bishop is a Greek 
term, coming from the word * ' epi>>kopos, " meaning an 
overseer. Polder is a Jewish term, coming from the 
word '^presbuteros," and has the same idea of tend- 
ing the flock as shovra in Acts 20:17-28; Titus 1:5-7, 
and 1 Pet. 5:1, 2. (See Eph. 4:11 for the term pastor 
and his duties.) 

Not much is said about deacons; the first reference 
regarding them is in Acts 6:1-6. That they became 
clearly recognized as church officers is unmistakable. 
In addressing the Philippian church Paul in his salu- 
tations refers to *^the bishops and deacons." Then 
in 1 Tim. 3:8-13, Paul sets forth the deacon's qualifi- 
cations with the same degree of care shown as to the 
bishop's fitness for his office. 

Ijaptist churches therefore have but the two kinds 
of officers mentioned in the New Testament, w^hich are 
bishop, or elder, or pastor and deacons. Every true 

[47] 



Baptist preacher is a bishop, or elder in the Scrip- 
tural sense. The ecclesiasticism of the Roman church, 
as well as that of every other ecclesiastical body, all 
of which can be traced back to the Eoman church, has 
no Scriptural grounds whatever upon which to base 
its hierarchical claims, while Baptists pattern their 
churches after the New Testament order, both as t<|j 
affairs and ordinances, as well as in all other respects? 



i 



[48] 



CHAPTER VI 

Church Ordinances 

Tir7"E come now to the ordinances of a New Testa- 
" ment church which we shall treat as fully and as 
thoroughly as space will permit. The first ordinance 
is that of baptism, around which much controversy 
has existed for centuries. "We shall endeavor to set 
forth the scriptural arguments for the proper admin- 
istration of this ordinance in clear light, with the one 
desire to give the truth rather than just to retain a 
position respecting it. In the matter of baptism, as 
in all things else, let us all say, '^ Where He leads me 
I will follow." Then let us be willing for ourselves 
to study the question reverently that we may see 
^' where He leads." 

Many books and articles on both sides, together with 
lexicons, church histories, commentaries, the Greek 
New Testament, Septuagint and Hebrew Bible, have 
been consulted and studied with the one desire to gain 
a clear knowledge of the real teaching of Scripture 
on this much controverted theme. It is not the wish 
nor intention, of the writer to court unpleasant con- 
troversy with anyone, nor to show a spirit of bigotry 
in any of its phases. Every true Christian man and 
woman desires the truth and nothing but the truth 
in the study of God's Word. And while we will not 

[49] 



always see alike, we can study together and still exer- 
cise Christian courtesy in our investigations. The true 
disciple lives in an atmosphere where truth is wel- 
comed and so appropriated as to bring the life into 
closer and truer fellowship with our blessed Lord. 

These studies, then, are for those who are willing to 
seek evidence and follow truth wherever it leads. No 
honest heart will ever assume an immovable attitude, 
regardless of evidence in opposition to it. The truly 
sincere maintain a position only by weight of evi- 
dence favoring such position. Family tradition and 
ecclesiastical preferment are not worth much in the ,. 
balance where truth is being weighed, and he who is f| 
wholly guided by them is often far from right. No 
one can hope to be submissive to the wooings of truth 
until he rids himself of prejudice and preconceived 
opinions and welcomes the full light of God's Word. 

Baptists are often accused of narrowness, bigotry 
and even lack of Christian charity because they hold 
so tenaciously to immersion as the only true scriptu- 
ral baptism. This charge is often made, however, by 
those who have not had opportunity or are unwilling 
to inform themselves concerning the scriptural posi- 
tion. In the discussion that follows the writer shall 
endeavor to state the case clearly and with fairness. 11 
We have no desire to belittle nor antagonize those *■ 
with whom we are not agreed. We shall not inten- 
tionally do so. We wish rather to be courteous and 
to present the truth on this subject as Baptists under- 
stand it, at the same time offering no apology for our 

[50] 



II 



% 



faith, since we firmly believe it to be in accord with 
the open Word of God. This being true, it is incum- 
bent upon us to practice it and teach it, ever remem- 
bering our Lord's great commission: ^^Go ye therefore 
and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them 
into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
Holy Spirit ; teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I commanded you.'' In the face of this com- 
mission. Baptists would feel themselves false to their 
Lord's command should they fail to teach unswerv- 
ingly what they deem the truth about baptism. Wher- 
ever Christians go they are to teach this command. 
If immersion alone is scriptural it should be received 
by every Christian and he should be cortent with noth- 
ing else. Those interested in this matter are asked to 
follow carefully in the weigiiing of evidence on the 
subject. 
Among Pedobaptists 

It is interesting to note the various opinions held 
among our Pedobaptist friends regarding this subject. 
They all oppose the Baptist stand and speak of our 
conspicuous isolation caused by it. But they are by 
no means agreed among themselves as to the meaning 
and purpose of baptism. Catholics baptize for regen- 
eration and hold that it is '^absolutely necessary for 
salvation." Lutherans agree with Romanists in this 
and the standards of Episcopalians teach the same. 
The Roman church, however, gave birth to this teach- 
ing as every student of church history may readily 
learn. Her zeal for the performance of this rite is 

[51] 



such that anyone may baptize iii the absence of the 
clergy. Nurses, physicians or any others present in 
serious sickness are urged to baptize rather than risk 
one's dying unbaptized. It matters not whether the 
person administering it be Protestant, Catholic, mem- 
ber of any church, male or female, just so the ** sacra* 
menf of baptism is not denied a person dangerously 
sick. 

Presbyterians deny baptismal regeneration, but 
claim that baptism is a sacrament symbolizing the 
Work of the Spirit. Wherever the Bible speaks of the 
pouring out of the Spirit our Presbyterian brethren 
see it symbolized in pouring water for baptism. 

Methodists say baptism is '*a sign of profession — - 
also a sign of regeneration or the new birth.'' Both 
Presbyterians and Methodists strongly disclaim any 
regenerating or saving efficacy in connection w4th it. 
At the same time, both denominations receive mem* 
bers without rebaptizing them from the churches that 
do teach and emphasize baptismal regeneration. 
Furthermore, their reception of members from the 
Catholic church on their baptism opens the door for 
all who will to enter, whether baptized by physician, 
nurse, church member or non-church member, be the 
administrator male or female.* Such irregularities 
make the ordinance meaningless, even when tested by 
the written standards in their own creeds. 



* Southern Presbyterians, after many years of acceptance 
of Catholic baptism, now reject it. However, some local 
churches still receive it and the Great Presbyterian family at 
large still accept baptism administered by Komanistd» 

[52] 



Again, Presbyterians have spoken officially against 
immersion as being scriptural baptism. Yet they will 
receive members from Baptist churches without re- 
baptizing them. Methodists put themselves on record 
as being ready to baptize by sprinkling, pouring or 
immersing, according to the wish of the parties most 
concerned. 
Summary 

In summing up, the following conclusions appear : 

1. The Catholic, Lutheran and Episcopalian com- 
munions teach baptismal regeneration. 

2. The stress placed on baptism by Catholics makes 
any person a proper administrator of the ordinance. 

3. Presbyterians and Methodists: (a) Both exclude 
baptismal regeneration from their written creeds; (b) 
both accept, as valid, baptism from churches that teach 
baptismal regeneration; (c) both accept Catholic bap- 
tism regardless of its claims and irregularities; (d) 
Presbyterians reject immersion as being scriptural, yet 
will take Baptists on their baptism; (e) Methodists 
accept and practice any mode. 

4. Pedobaptists are so much divided among them- 
selves that none of them could claim all are right, 
since their teachings clearly speak to the contrary. 

5. Pedobaptists show their inconsistency by accept- 
ing any and all baptisms by whatever mode performed, 
for whatever purpose performed and by whatever per- 
son administered. 

6. They virtually destroy all standards by accept- 
ing baptism done under any standard. 

[53] 



CHAPTER VII 

Affusion 

T ET us now consider the arguments commonly given 
^-^ for the practice of affusion. The rapid trend for 
the return of primitive baptism during the century 
just closed has aroused somewhat the affusionist side 
of Christendom ; so that we have much literature from 
them, endeavoring to defend their teaching and prac- 
tice of the rite. It is a noticeable fact that not until j| 
in comparatively recent times did affusionists seek 
countenance for this practice in Scripture. Luther 
and Calvin, the most stalwart reformers of the Re- 
formation period, both state explicitly that immersion 
was the original mode. They made no special effort 
to justify affusion by Scriptural precedent. Just here 
many naturally ask why, then, didn't they restore the 
primitive method? Luther wished to do it, but the 
opposing side to reform was so strong from every 
quarter that he was compelled to yield at some points, 
and this is one of the points yielded. Calvin, while 
admitting that immersion was the original form, said 
the churches should be allowed liberty in the matter 
The writings of these men, still extant, contain plenty 
of evidence to prove that the statements here made 
are true. It soon became evident that a show of Bible 
authority must be made to satisfy the minds of an 

[54] 



II 
II 



ever-increasing number who will not rest content short? 
of what they conceive to be a ''thus saith the Lord." 
We shall briefly consider the claims usually given by 
affusionists as Scriptural. Later on in our study we 
shall discuss the language feature. Here notice will 
be taken only of the general accounts and connections 
of Scriptures commonly relied upon to prove affusion. 

New Testament Called to Witness 

The New Testament will first be considered. Here 
our affusionist friends rely mainly upon passages that 
do not describe, in detail, the various steps pursued 
in performing the ordinance of baptism. Hence they 
conclude that here they have sufficient ground to advo- 
cate affusion rather than immersion. These accounts 
are found in Acts 2:37-42; Acts 8:12, 13; Acts 9:17, 
18; Acts 10:44-48; sometimes Acts 16:13-15; though 
this is suspiciously near a river. Acts 16:19-34; Acts 
18 :8, 25 ; Acts 19 :l-5 ; Acts 22 :16. It is at once mani- 
fest here to anyone who will take the trouble to read 
the above passages that there is not one solitary word 
or intimation that the ordinance was performed in 
these cases in any manner different from: the other 
baptisms recorded in the Bible. These passages sim- 
ply record the incident in the apostolic career, and 
pass on. If one relies upon such Scripture as this to 
prove affusion he must, of necessity, discard the mean- 
ing of the original language and base all of his argu- 
ment upon silence, pure and simple, since there is not 
so much as one word given upon which to build an 

[55] 



argument to support affusion. By far the majority of 
baptisms performed now by Baptists are not described 
in detail. When mention is made of them, the writer 
or speaker merely states that such and such a minis- 
ter baptized so many persons on a certain occasion. 
No one ever thinks of it as anything other than immer- 
sion, since the Baptist way of baptizing is known to 
all. In Apostolic days the same was true, and every 
one hearing the account of a baptism understood it to 
mean an immersion in water. That such is true may 
be readily shown by reference to those examples that 
are described more in detail. In Matthew 3 :l-6 the 
Greek (also Revised Version) tells us that John bap- 
tized large numbers ^^in the River Jordan.'' Matthew 
3:13-17 and Mark 1:9-11 tell us how Jesus Himself 
was baptized. It distinctly states that He, too, was 
baptized ' ' in the Jordan. ' ' John 3 :22, 23 refers also 
to John's baptism, and shows that he chose a certain 
place, Aenon, for baptizing ** because there was much 
water there." Acts 6:26-39 describes an isolated 
case and does it in such a way that not even a Baptist 
of today could give in fewer words a more explicit 
account as to how the ordinance of baptism is per- 
formed. ''They both went down into the water 
* * * and they came up out of the water," etc. 
Romans 6:3-5 and Colossians 2:12 call baptism a 
burial. Let those who have witnessed the various forms 
employed for baptism decide for themselves which one 
most resembles a burial. 
Now the two groups of references are nearly evenly 

[56] 



I 



divided. The latter group are of such a nature, that 
were they the only accounts of the ordinance left on 
record there would be no question in any mind as to 
how baptism was performed in New Testament times. 
But these are not all, say our affusionist friends, and 
then they call attention to the passages cited in the 
first group above. Reference to this group shows no 
gain for their practice, since there is nothing more 
than a bare statement of facts in these passages, tell- 
ing us that certain parties were baptized. No one has 
any ground whatever for claiming these baptisms dif- 
fered in any way from those cited in the second group, 
where the ordinance is described more fully. Affu- 
sionists are compelled to build their argument solely 
upon silence, as there is not one word or syllable in 
the Scripture accounts to indicate in the least that 
these baptisms differed from the others. It needs no 
special word to show how unreliable are conclusions 
whose premises are silence. 

Again it is urged that owing to the scarcity of wa- 
ter in Palestine immersion could not have been the 
mode. This objection, too, is a mere assumption. 
Nearly two thousand years have passed since Apos- 
tolic days, and for one to rise up now and declare the 
non-existence of any pools that had a depth of say four 
feet is flimsy argument indeed. Some have gone so 
far as to say that even the River Jordan was too shal- 
low for immersion. Just a few years ago the late Dr. 
Talmage, the great Presbyterian divine, had no diffi- 
culty in immersing a person in the River Jordan. Bap- 

[57] 



tists have never yet had any trouble in finding plenty 
of water, and our missionaries traverse almost every 
part of the world. It is left for pedobaptists alone to 
plead scarcity of water. 

Then we are told 3,000 could not have been baptizec 
in one day. History unniistakably shows that on sev- 
eral occasions since the time of Christ more than 3,00( 
Jiave been baptized in one day, and that by immer 
sion, too. Our own Baptist missionaries in India, in 
the year ISTS, baptized 2,222 in nine hours, with only 
two persons baptizing at a time. Let no one be 
alarmed, there is not the slightest ground for difficulty 
about the 3,000. 

New Testament Alone Speaks 

The New Testament is the only part of the Bible 
that records any case of baptism, or even refers to the 
subject. All of its descriptions of the ordinance are 
manifestly in proof of immersion and when taken in 
their natural connection they unmistakably make that 
impression on the mind of the reader. Pedobaptists 
are well aware of this, and for that reason they wan- 
der back to the Old Testament for the principal part 
of their argument to support affusion. Here they 
carry us around the Jewish altar to behold all of the 
sprinklings and pourings mentioned in connection 
therewith. They dwell upon the various ceremonial 
washings of the Jews, and bring forth many hyssop 
branches used in some of their ceremonies. They 
speak of the installation of priests and kings. They 

[58] 



tell us of people cleansed by sprinkling clean water 
upon them, and of the times when God is to pour out 
His spirit upon man, etc. On these things as a foun- 
dation do they build their argument for affusion in 
the ordinance of baptism. A little investigation will 
readily reveal to any candid mind the fact that there 
is not the slightest similarity between these Jewish 
ceremonies of the old dispensation and the ordinance 
of Christian baptism. This is shown by language — 
see chapter that follows on Study in Language — also 
by a comparison of the old ceremonies with the new 
rite. 

The Scriptures usually quoted are gathered from 
far and near, and are piled up in such profusion that 
they serve rather to becloud than to clarify. To 
those who haven't the time nor the inclination to go 
into an elaborate study of theology, this involves the 
doctrine of baptism in mystery and causes them to 
conclude that the Bible isn't clear regarding it, and 
hence it doesn't matter which view of the subject one 
takes. The Bible, however, is clear enough when peo- 
ple exercise the same attitude toward the study of this 
subject that they do toward other subjects. This is a 
matter not to be settled before it is learned, and we 
should not be satisfied without investigation. The 
ground is to be held by facts and not by mere force of 
will. 
Old Testament No Witness 

Reference to Old Testament ceremonies shows no 
likeness whatever to the New Testament ordinance of 

[59] 



baptism, and if they are intended to be the same, it is 
nothing but natural and reasonable to say that they 
would be described with similar connection in the New 
Testament as in the Old. Affusionists are eager to tell 
us that John's baptism was identical with purification 
as described in the Jewish law. This is a mere as- 
sumption which has no proof to support it, but on the 
contrary has much to discredit it. In Matthew 21 :25, 
Mark 11 :30 and Luke 20 :4 Christ distinctly makes the 
Jews understand that John's baptism was *^from 
heaven." In Peter's speech before the one hundred 
and twenty (Acts 1:22) and also before Cornelius 
(Acts 10:37) he refers to John's baptism as a separate 
and distinct rite. Acts 13 :24 shows that Paul did the 
same thing in a speech at Antioch of Pisidia. Every- 
where this baptism is referred to, it is shown to be an 
entirely new rite. John 3:25 speaks of a dispute or 
question that arose between John's disciples and a Jew 
about purifying. There certainly could have been no 
dispute if there was no difference between this rite and 
the one so familiar to every Jew. The fact that refer- 
ence is here made to Jesus doesn't change matters at 
all, for He was teaching exactly the same baptism 
that John had introduced. It simply shows that the 
disciples of John and this Jew were not agreed that 
John's baptism and Jewish purifications were one and 
the same thing. 

Then if John's baptism was a continuation of an old 
custom, how does it happen that we never hear of any 
of his predecessors leading the people to the river Jor 

[60] 



dan, nor to any other place where *^much water'' was 
found when they performed the rite? The Bible no- 
where cites any examples that correspond with John's 
work. Besides, if John's duties are to be likened to 
those of a Jewish priest, it would have been neces- 
sary for him to rebaptize indefinitely, since the priest 
performed the ceremony of purification over and over 
again, as often as a person became unclean. We never 
hear of John's rebaptizing. It is true, a few persons 
who knew only John's baptism were baptized after 
the crucifixion and ascension of Jesus, but it was be- 
cause they didn't understand the significance of the 
rite in its relation to Christ and the Holy Spirit. The 
multitudes were not rebaptized, nor was Christ rebap- 
tized, and the apostles baptized a person only once. 
Also, we are taught by Ephesians 4:5 that there is 
*'one Lord, one faith, one baptism." The Scripture 
teaches conclusively that the ceremony of purification 
might be performed any number of times, but true 
baptism only once. Furthermore, the very name ap- 
plied to John because of the rite he performed shows 
it was something new. He is significantly called John 
the Baptist, i. e., the ^^baptizer." Now, if he did what 
others had done all along before him, why don't we 
read of Elijah the Baptist, Jeremiah the Baptist or 
somebody the Baptist? There is not even an allusion 
to such a rite among the Jews as John performed in 
either the Old or New Testament, Apochryphal books, 
Philo or Josephus, by the early Christian fathers or in 
the Mishna. These writings cover the entire ground 

[61] 



of Jewish religious history from the earliest Old Testa- 
ment times until several centuries after Christ. The 
fact that none of them make any mention whatever 
of a rite similar to that which John performed leaves 
those who advocate such a theory to evolve it out of 
the imagination and thus build upon dead silence. 

Christ Not a Jewish Priest 

We are told, too, by our Pedobaptist friends that 
Christ's baptism was for the purpose of initiating Him 
in the Jewish priesthood and was therefore by affu- 
sion. This also is without one syllable of Scripture 
favoring it and has positive evidence against it. The 
Jewish law distinctly says none but Levites could 
be priest. Numbers 1 :47-54 describes their charge 
over the tabernacle. Numbers 3 :9, 10 and 18 :6, 7 
state beyond even the shadow of a doubt that 
from the Levites, and from the Levites only, could 
a priest be chosen. The genealogies of Christ in 
the first chapter of Matthew and the third chapter 
of Luke, as well as the prophecies about the Mes- 
siah, place Him in the kingly line. This, then, with- 
out question debars Him from the Jewish priest- 
hood. Now in the face of this plain and unmistakable 
Scripture, it is wondrous strange that men could have 
the courage to say that Jesus Christ was a Jewish 
priest. But, says one, Christ was prophet, priest and 
king, so he must have been a Jewish priest, after 
all. The epistle to the Hebrews discusses His priest- 
hood. Hebrews 7 :11-17 explicitly states that He was 

[62] 



not made a priest by any Jewish ceremony; *^not 
after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the 
power of an endless life. * * * Thou art a priest 
forever after the order of Melchizedek/' ^'Now if he 
were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, see- 
ing there are those who offer the gifts according to 
the law'' (Hebrew 6:4). Again, Exodus twenty -ninth 
chapter and Leviticus eighth chapter give a detailed 
description of the ceremony employed to induct a 
priest into ofi&ce. It is an elaborate ceremony, as ref- 
erence to the above Scripture will show. Then there 
is no evidence whatever to show that this ceremony 
was ever annulled or superseded later on. The simple 
ceremony of Christ's baptism has no similarity what- 
ever to those performed at the installation of a Jewish 
priest. For one to say they are the same is a bare 
assumption, with neither Scripture, history nor reason 
to support it. Besides, there is not a case on record 
to show that a candidate for the Jewish priesthood 
ever went to the river Jordan to be installed into 
office. It would be just as reasonable and just as scrip- 
tural to say that every person in the vast throng who 
was baptized by John in the river Jordan was thereby 
made a priest as to say that Christ was thereby in- 
stalled into the priestly office. These are facts which 
cannot be shown false, and it is left for those who are 
controlled by sentiment rather than by evidence to set 
them aside. 

Another favorite source of argument for our Pedo- 
baptist brethren is the reference to the Scriptures 

[63] 



which speak of the coming of the Spirit, the pouring 
out of the Spirit, etc. This, we are told, is conclusive 
argument for pouring water in baptism, rather than 
immersing in water. For this argument to have any 
strength, it is necessary for one to have a similar con- 
ception of the Spirit that he has of fluid, or some ma- 
terial substance which can be measured. The spirit of 
man is that intangible something called the soul, the 
opposite to the flesh. The same Greek word is used, 
in speaking of God's Spirit, that is used to describe 
man's spirit. The definition of this word is breath, 
wind, spirit, etc. In John 3 :3-8 Christ compares the 
coming and going of the Spirit to the action of the 
wind. Acts 2:2 states that the Spirit came with a 
sound like a mighty rushing wind. One cannot pos- 
sible conceive the wind to be poured out as so many 
drops, or measures, but thinks of it as enveloping an 
object instantly upon contact with it. The same iden- 
tical conception must be had when we think of the 
Holy Spirit coming upon man. There is not mere con- 
tact with any part of the body, as the head, hand or 
foot, but a complete enveloping of the whole self, 
which causes absolute surrender to God's power. The 
early disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, but 
no one would think of their being filled as one would 
fill up a vessel with fluid. Every one readily under- 
stands that they were completely under the powerful 
influence of God's Holy Spirit. God is a Spirit, and in 
Him we live and move and have our being. 

The Daily Times-Democrat of New Orleans, in de- 

[64] 



scribing the horrors of the disasters in St. Pierre, said 
the town was ^^ baptized by fire." During the Span- 
ish-American war an Eastern periodical gave a photo- 
graph of one of our companies, saying, in a certain 
battle, they were *^ baptized by fire/' In both of these 
cases the conception of the writers, and also of the 
readers, was nothing more nor less than a complete 
enveloping of the town and of the soldiers by fire. It 
is a striking fact that when the word baptize is used 
in any other than a religious sense, every one readily 
concedes to it the original and natural meaning. Let 
earnest hearts consider well this important fact. 

Majorities Not Conclusive Evidence 

As a last resort, Pedobaptists often tell us that they 
have such a vast majority on their side, hence must 
be right. This same argument might be as effectually 
used to disprove Christianity itself, since the vast ma- 
jority of the world are by no means followers of 
Christ. But while Pedobaptists have the majority of 
adherents and practitioners of affusion, Baptists have 
by far the majority of the world's scholarship on their 
side. The ranks of every great denomination are thick 
with scholars who readily concede that immersion was 
the original form of baptism. Also, let no one forget 
that ''the right and the truth always make a ma- 
jority." 

Finally, it is noticed, when Pedobaptists perform the 
ordinance by affusion, they are either compelled to 
avoid altogether reference to the cases recorded in 

[65] 



the New Testament, or else make elaborate explana- 
tion to show why their act is so out of harmony with 
the Scripture description of baptism. It would sound 
strange indeed for one to administer the rite by affu- 
sion, and read as his authority for same, either the 
account of Christ's baptism, or of the eunuch's bap-|| 
tism. When Baptists administer the ordinance of bap- 
tism they are not debarred from reading any account 
of the rite recorded in the Bible, and this can be done 
without a word of explanation, since the accounts 
themselves are self-explanatory, showing the act of 
immersion to be in natural accord with the language 
used in the inspired record. 

In conclusion, there is not one single, solitary ex- 
ample of, nor command for, nor inference for baptism 
by affusion to be found in the entire Bible, from lid 
to lid. If one example can be found Baptists will yield 
the ground, and themselves advocate that mode hence- 
forward. Those who cherish affusion as Scripture 
baptism must of necessity rely upon unutterable si 
lence to sustain them. 



[66] 



CHAPTER VIII 

Infant Baptism 

nPHIS discussion refutes what many excellent peo- 
-*- pie have long cherished as divine truth. The first 
impulse then with them may be to let preconceived 
opinions and passion for these opinions discredit what 
is here said and thus refuse to give the subject a thor- 
ough testing by the Word of God. Each one is asked, 
however, to read thoughtfully, comparing all Scrip- 
ture reference for himself. This will unmistakably 
show that the Bible has not one single command for, 
example of, nor sanction for infant baptism to be 
found anywhere in it. In fact it will be learned that 
infant baptism is never so much as once mentioned in 
the Bible, and that all of its teaching relative to the 
subject of baptism is against administering the ordi- 
nance to infants. Let us then study together with the 
earnest hope and sincere desire that truth may be 
found on this subject. 

Pedobaptism and Baptist Opposition Thereto 

The word pedobaptist means one who practices, or 
advocates infant baptism; hence it is that all denomi- 
nations adhering to the baptism of children are called 
pedobaptists. Baptists have ever refused to baptize 
any but believers, taking the ground that there is no 
Scriptural warrant, whatever, either by precept or ex- 

[67] 



ample, for administering the rite where there can be 
no exercise of faith in the gospel of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. This firm stand is daily making itself felt 
among all Christian people, to the extent that the per 
cent of infant baptism is steadily and surely growing 
smaller each decade, as the statistics of the other 
denominations clearly show. There can be no doubt 
about the Baptist emphasis of the Scripture teaching 
being the cause of this falling off, since the per cent 
of decrease is greatest in those lands where Baptists 
have flourished most. The practice, however, is still 
defended and many persons think a mortal sin is com- 
mitted by neglecting the baptism of children. If this 
teaching were scriptural, it should not only be de- 
fended, but its practice should be urged by every 
disciple of our Lord. On the other hand, if it is not 
scriptural, as Baptists have ever contended, and 
proven, it should by all means be forever discarded 
from the role of Christian teaching. 

How Infant Baptism Gained Recognition 

All are agreed that there is not a single case re- 
corded in the whole Bible, which speaks of the bap- 
tism of an infant, either by Christ or by any of His 
disciples. Also, all are agreed that quite a number 
of clear and unmistakable cases of adult baptisms are 
recorded. This being true, how then are we to ac- 
count for the wide-spread practice of child baptism? 
Simply by reference to church history, since this is the 
only source of information we have, as to the action 

[68] 



of Christians, after the faithful pen of inspired dis- 
ciples ceased to write. Even in Apostolic days errors 
were seeking admission into the churches, hence it is 
not at all startling to find that they continued to seek 
admission after our Lord's first disciples were called 
home. Error is like a disease which creeps in so grad- 
ually that one is hardly aware of its presence till it is 
often so deep seated that it becomes hard, if not im- 
possible, to shake it off. Thus it was that the error 
concerning baptism found its way into many of the 
early churches and gained such a firm hold upon Chris- 
tendom that its power is still felt. To this ordinance 
was soon attached so much importance that it was 
considered necessary for salvation. The Roman Em- 
pire was fertile soil for growing just such a power as 
the Roman Catholic Church, and when Imperial Rome 
chose to assume the dictatorship in religious matters, 
most of the Christian churches were merged into one 
great system, which opened the way for the poisonous 
blood of error to circulate in all of its parts. Churches 
which dared to speak against this power were either 
crushed or silenced till the day-dawn of religious tol- 
eration, and finally the full noon of religious freedom 
in some parts of the world gave them opportunity for 
growth and utterance. Two factors of the Roman sys- 
tem stood strongly for infant baptism. The first is 
found in her teaching of baptismal regeneration. The 
second is shown in the effort to bring everyone into 
her fold, and thus subjugate the world. Infant bap- 
tism is the logical out-growth from the doctrine of 

[69] 



baptismal regeneration. When a person once takes 
the stand that baptism is necessary for salvation, it 
then becomes reasonable and natural to believe that 
infants, too, must be baptized if they are to be saved. 
It was nearly two hundred years after Christ before 
any church historian made mention of pedobaptism. 
This considered in connection with the fact that there 
are no Scripture cases recorded makes it evident, be- 
yond question, that those who cherish the custom must 
look elsewhere than in the Bible and early church his- 
tory to substantiate, by example, their right to con- 
tinue the practice. Besides, there was discovered in 
1873 a document called ^^The Didache^' or ^^The 
Teachings of the Twelve Apostles,'' which scholars 
date back to 70 or 100 A. D. In this Avork express 
mention of, and clear direction for baptism is given. 
Its mention of the ordinance shows unmistakably that 
its framers knew nothing of infant baptism. In 
speaking of the preparation for the rite it says: ** Be- 
fore baptism let baptizer and the baptized fast, and 
whosoever others can, but the baptized thou shalt com- 
mand to fast for one or two days before.'' Everyone 
can readily see that this excludes altogether the bap- 
tism of infants, since an infant could not be com- 
manded to fast one or two days. 

How Infant Baptism Found Its Way Into Protestant 
Churches 

It is a well known historical fact uttered here with 
no thought of offending any, that the Protestant 

[70] 



denominations which advocate infant baptism received 
it from the Roman Catholic Church. John Calvin, the 
father of Presbyterianism, was educated in that church 
for the priesthood; Martin Luther, the leading spirit 
in reform and founder of the Lutheran Church, was 
for years a Catholic priest; the Church of England — 
called in the United States, Episcopal Church — left the 
Roman church in the time of Henry VIII; the Metho- 
dist Church is a branch from the Episcopal Church; 
and infant baptism is one of the errors that all of 
these reformers failed to leave behind. 

Efforts to Find Scripture Sanction for the Rite 

Pedobaptism, like affusion, has many defenders who 
claim to have Scripture warrant for its existence. The 
steady opposition of Baptists to this misuse of baptism 
has necessitated something more satisfying to the laity 
than mere sentiment and tradition; hence it is that 
the Bible has been searched through and through for 
passages said to favor it. It is not our purpose to 
impeach the sincerity of those who so read the Scrip- 
tures, but rather to refute their argument, and thus 
show the falsity of their position. 

Every candid student observes at the very outset 
of this study that the Scriptures commonly quoted in 
defense of infant baptism are by no means clear cut. 
Not one single reference is found wherein is mentioned 
the baptism of an infant. This, then, undoubtedly 
leaves those who advocate the practice without any 
direct Scripture evidence whatever. 

[71] 



This fact is substantiated by a little careful exami- 
nation. Matt. 19 :13, 14 is sometimes claimed in favo 
of child baptism. This, however, is shown not to be 
valid claim, as the subject of baptism is not mentioned 
at all here; besides John 4:2 tells us that Jesus Him- 
self baptized no one, which is conclusive that the chil- 
dren brought to Christ were not baptized. Then we 
are referred to the household baptisms, and told that 
infants must have been included there among the bap 
tized. We find nothing whatever to favor such a sup 
position, but much to discredit it. The Bible specially 
mentions four cases of household baptism, and three 
of these use language that shows intelligent action and 
voluntary decision on the part of those who were the 
recipients of baptism. The one instance where the 
account is not thus detailed is in the case of Lydia— 
Acts 16 :13-15. But to say that she had infant chil- 
dren would hang the argument on a slender threac 
indeed, since no intimation of children is given, anc 
besides Lydia is supposed to be away from home aj 
^ ^ a seller of purple, ' ' and nobody knows whether oi 
not she had ever been married, much less as to whethei 
she had infant children with her. Besides, Acts 16 :4( 
clearly implies that those baptized in her householc 
were adults, as Paul and Silas, after their release fron 
prison, went to her house and exhorted the new dis-* 
ciples. Acts 16:23-34 records the second household 
baptism. Here the 32nd verse settles the question as 
to who were baptized: '^And they spoke the Word of 
the Lord unto him with all that were in his house.'' 

[72] 



The 34th verse says that all rejoiced and believed in 
God, thus nullifying even the remotest possibility of 
including infants among those baptized. The third 
household baptism spoken of is in Acts 1S:8: ^'And 
Crispus, the ruler of the Synagogue, believed in the 
Lord with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians 
hearing believed and were baptized," again clearly 
showing that faith preceded the ordinance. The 
fourth and last case 1 Cor. 1 :14-16 where Paul cites 
the instances of baptism administered by him at Cor- 
inth, and in 1 Cor. 16 :15 he mentions this household 
again and says, ^^They have set themselves to minister 
unto the saints." Thus it is explicitly shown in the 
records of these cases themselves, that there is no 
ground whatever for even supposing infants were bap- 
tized. Let the reader himself turn to the Scripture 
references and make his own comparisons, which will 
assuredly verify what is here shown. 

Infant Baptism Does Not Take the Place of Circum- 
cision 

The bulk of the argument for infant baptism now 
comes from the endeavor to prove that it takes the 
place of circumcision. This position leads pedobaptists 
through the entire Old Testament, whence they bring 
forth a large array of passages which are said to prove 
the point. However much may be said and claimed by 
this method, the fact still remains that they never find 
so much as one passage that says or even intimates 
that baptism superseded circumcision. Colossians 

[73] 



2:11, 12 is sometimes cited as evidence that circum- 
cision is supplanted by baptism, but here no reference 
is made to the circumcision of the flesh, nor is even 
the slightest connection shown to exist between the 
two rites. All this laborious argument is cut short 
by a few references to the New Testament, where the 
subject of circumcision is discussed and its relation to 
Christianity shown. Every Bible student knows some- 
thing of the trouble given the early churches by some 
Jewish Christians, who endeavored to force the Law 
of Moses on the followers of Christ. If the reader 
has enough concern in this matter to read the refer- 
ences here cited, he will have no difficulty in readily 
understanding that the Apostles indicated no connec- 
tion whatever between baptism and circumcision. The 
15th chapter of Acts alone is enough to settle once 
and for all this discussion. There the question of cir- 
cumcision is the bone of contention, and action on it 
was taken by a body of chosen men, some of whom 
were Apostles. It had become manifestly necessary 
for a thorough understanding of this matter among 
the early Christians; i. e., were they to circumcise or 
not? The question was a vital one, so much so that 
it threatened to divide the churches. This 15th chap- 
ter of Acts gives two speeches and a carefully pre- 
pared letter relative to the discussion, besides saying 
that Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas made speeches. 
But amid all of these utterances caused by the very 
subject of circumcision, not one syllable even intimates 
that baptism had superseded it. Now, if baptism was 

[74] 



intended to take the place of circumcision, could any- 
candid mind hold for a moment that it is in any way 
reasonable to believe that all of this discussion on the 
very heart of the contention would have passed with- 
out so much as a single word having been recorded 
to show that this was really the case? The object of 
the discussion was to settle forever the question of 
circumcision among the disciples of Christ and most 
surely if infant baptism was to take its place it would 
have been stated here in no uncertain words. Paul 
refers to this same discussion in the second chapter of 
Galatians, and there brings up the subject of dispute, 
but says not one word about baptism. The churches 
in Galatia were also vexed with this question, and 
Paul is endeavoring to set them right in the matter, 
and for that reason refers to this former trouble re- 
corded in the 15th chapter of Acts. Some Jews of 
Galatia were endeavoring to impose upon the Gentile 
Christians there, the Law of Moses. Paul devotes Gal. 
5:1-15 to the question of circumcision, endeavoring to 
set these churches right by showing that circumcision 
was null and void ; but again it is seen that not a word 
nor the slightest intimation is given to show that bap- 
tism has taken its place. The realm of fanciful specu- 
lation alone is open to those who would put baptism 
in the room of circumcision. 

Clear and Direct Scriptural Evidence Against Infant 
Baptism 
The Scriptures not only do not say anything favor- 
ing infant baptism, but do say much against it. There 

[75] 



are several accounts of baptism described, and all of 
them show that the persons were believers. Besides 
there are other references to the subject which show 
clearly that the ordinance is meant for believers only. 
Acts 2:38, ** Repent ye and be baptized every one of 
you.'' Acts 2:41, ''They then that received His word 
were baptized. " Acts 8 :12, ''But when they believed — 
they were baptized, both men and women" — no refer- 
ence whatever to infants. 

The Great Commission Against It 

Aside from the above, there are two other passages 
which should satisfy any seeker after the Scripture 
teaching as to who are fit subjects for baptism. Matt. 
28:19, 20, "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all 
the nations, baptizing them, etc." Some would here 
twist the language so as to mean the nations are dis- 
cipled by baptism, and hence find, as they think, a 
place for infant baptism. Any such supposition as 
that, however, is annulled by reference to the same 
commission given in another form by Mark in 16:15, 
16, "And he said unto them. Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved." This ac- 
count is clear cut and leaves no room for quibbling 
over language, and it is folly for one to imagine even, 
that the Great Commission in any way regards infants 
as fit subjects for baptism. 



[76] 



Infant Baptism Is Not Only Unscriptural But Its Prac- 
tice Is Positively Wrong 

As a last resort many persons often say, ^ ' Well, any- 
way, it will do no harm to have children baptized,'' 
and seem to find some consolation in the thought. Let 
it be noted, however, that it is wrong, and does do 
harm. 

First — It is done without any scriptural authority 
whatever for it, and in direct opposition to divine au- 
thority against it. 

Second — It hinders, and often defeats voluntary 
choice in one's faith, as he is urged by others not to 
break vows imposed upon him when the rite was per- 
formed, in his unconscious infancy. 

Third — It is anti-scriptural, since its practice defeats 
the true command of our Blessed Lord. 

Fourth — It deceives the parents and later the child, 
when it is grown up, by having begotten the idea that 
some sort of a charm or especial efficacy accompanied 
the rite. 

Fifth— It displaces the ordinance' by putting it be- 
fore faith, when the Scriptures explicitly command 
that it should follow the exercise of faith. 

Sixth — It fills the churches practicing it, with un- 
regenerate people, deceiving them and at the same 
time bringing reproach upon Christianity. Roman 
Catholicism is one striking example of the logical re- 
sult of infant baptism. 

Seventh — It is against religious liberty since the 
child's religious belief is chosen for it by others, and 

[77] 



it is also compelled to submit to the rite regardless of 
what might afterward be its wish in the matter. Just 
here may be found one of the reasons why Baptists 
have ever been the champions of religious liberty, and 
have suffered persecution almost everywhere for 
steadily opposing infant baptism. 

Give the Subject Due Consideration 

In conclusion, those who are really interested in 
this matter, enough to give it a thorough test in the 
light of God's Word, are sure to be rewarded with a 
clear conviction that there is absolutely no Scripture 
for baptizing any but believers. To elucidate a sub- 
ject one must stick to the text on it, and that is the 
only caution needed in the study of this question. The 
Bible is just as clear here as it is on any other sub- 
ject, and not one of its sacred pages has a line or even 
an intimation favoring infant baptism, and he who 
practices or advocates it, does so without the sanction 
of, and in direct opposition to God's Word. 



[78] 



CHAPTER IX 

Baptism — Continued 

A Study in Language 

T ANGUAGE is the vehicle of human thought, and is 
■*-^ carried on by sounds, signs, touch, or written char- 
acters. Its purpose is to convey the thought of one 
mind to another in getting or giving information. 
Some so-called wise men of old deemed it a mark of 
greatness to so employ language as to hide thought 
rather than to reveal it. We still have a few such 
wise men. The really educated person, however, is he 
who has learned the art of clarifying rather than mys- 
tifying. It is generally understood from Scripture as 
well as from linguistic study, that there was a time 
when all people spoke the same tongue. 

The time came, however, when mankind was scat- 
tered upon the face of the earth, and as nationalities 
became separate and distinct, the world was filled with 
varied and sundry dialects which developed into sepa- 
rate and distinct languages. Hence it is that the sum 
of the world's thought today must be drawn from 
many different languages. The endeavor to do this is 
apt to give faded results unless a great deal of skill 
and care are exercised by translators. Language grew 
apace with the mind of man, the most intellectual peo- 

[79] 



pie producing the most accurate speech. God had 
first to give man an intelligible language before His 
revelation could be recorded. This culminated in that 
matchless Greek tongue, which still commands the ad- 
miration of the world by its accuracy and beauty of 
expression. So exact was the Greek's mind, and so 
accurate his speech, that even the finest shades of 
thought were not lost. This, though, is liable to be 
lost in translation when one's zeal for a cherished 
meaning swerves the language from its natural course. 
So true is this, that even today, it is nearly impos- 
sible to word a document whose natural and intended 
meaning is free from the attacks of ingenious minds. 
The Bible has long been upon the dissecting table, and 
in many instances has been so mutilated and so disar- 
ranged and then so not arranged that it has indeed 
been made to give forth a varied message. The world 
has never known another book upon which man has 
spent such intense ingenuity in his endeavor to estab- 
lish fanciful claims. Nor is there any other subject 
that engages the mind of man, where such latitude of 
inaccurate thinking is allowed. Relative to religious 
matters we hear it said almost every day, all are good, 
anything will do. So many think this or so many 
think that, therefore it must be right. Accuracy is at 
least sought after in medicine, law and the physical 
sciences, but theology seems to be the dumping ground 
for all inaccuracies that are not tolerated in any other 
sphere. If men would forsake their worthless tradi- 
tions, and stand fairly and squarely upon what the 

[80] 



Bible actually teaches regardless of any other per- 
son's preference or their own preferment, the temples 
of error would soon crumble into dust, and theological 
discord would give place to the harmonious music of 
the divine will. Baptists rely upon the Bible alone 
for all matters of faith and practice, and will ever 
hold tenaciously to immersion as the only form of 
Scriptural baptism, since it is as clearly set forth in 
God's Word as language can make it. He who gets 
another meaning, does so by refusing to let the lan- 
guage have its natural and ordinary course. Build- 
ing upon this same hypothesis enables some men, as 
they think, to overthrow the doctrine of eternal pun- 
ishment, eternal happiness and even the deity of our 
Lord. Many refuse to be immersed because they are 
led to think that the Bible isn't clear on baptism, and 
therefore, that it is a matter of little importance. His- 
tory and scholarship, however, give no uncertain 
sound as to what the Bible teaches about baptism, and 
it is evident that there can never be a complete union 
of Christians till the primitive form of baptism is 
accorded its rightful place by all followers of Christ. 

Arguments Tested 

In previous chapters we have spoken of the circum- 
stances shown in the New Testament account of the 
ordinance; here we shall deal more particularly with 
the technicality of the language employed in record- 
ing these accounts. Those who banish immersion from 
the Bible rely mainly upon the following especial argu- 

[81] 



ments as their support: First, they refuse to let the 
classical meaning of ^^ baptize" come to the witness 
stand. Second, they broaden the meaning of the words 
used to describe baptism to suit their purposes and 
make all uses of prepositions in other connections, 
equally applicable in these connections, regardless of 
the law of language to the contrary. Third, they 
claim that Old Testament purifications, and New Tes- 
tament baptism are analogous. Fourth, baptism is 
called a mere form, and hence it doesn't matter which 
one is employed. It is noticeable, however, that these 
claims differ somewhat in their classical use from their 
New Testament use. But while this is true, by far 
the vast majority of words used in the New Testa- 
ment still retain their classical meaning, and natu- 
rally they are always allowed to hold that meaning till 
clear examples of usage are found wherein the mean- 
ing has changed. Again, their argument is shown to 
be of little value by the fact that the Old Testament 
was translated from the Hebrew into Greek just about 
130 years before the Christian era began; and this 
translation undoubtedly became the current one among 
the Jews, by the time Christ began His ministry. In 
proof of this, it is noted that the quotations from the 
Old Testament found in the New are usually taken 
by Christ and His disciples from the Greek transla- 
tion of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is further noticed 
that this Greek translation is very similar to the Greek 
of the New Testament, and had a vast influence over 
it. Then as Old Testament Greek wielded an un- 

[82] 



I 



doubted influence over the New Testament, and also 
since the Old Testament was the Jew's book of re- 
ligion, describing minutely the various ceremonies em- 
ployed in worship, it necessarily follows that the 
language used would reveal the fact as to whether or 
not baptism is the same in form as the old Jewish 
purifications. The use of words in this Old Testa- 
ment translation shows clearly and unmistakably that 
the various sprinklings and pourings mentioned in the 
Mosaic code have no similarity whatever to Christian 
baptism. Sprinkling, pouring and dipping all have 
separate Greek words to describe them, and for one 
to try to make himself or others believe that later the 
meanings of these separate and distinct words were 
expressed by the use of the same word ^^ baptize'' is 
like shutting the eyes at mid-day and saying it is 
night. For truly, there is not one shred of evidence 
to show that they are ever expressed by the one word 
^'baptize." Let us now deal with the words them- 
selves in the various examples where they are used. 

Histarical Sketch 

All of the differences about the mode of baptism are 
groundless, when the natural course of the language 
used to describe it is allowed. In every case where 
the Scripture speaks of the administration of the ordi- 
nance, it uses one and the same word, ^'baptizo," to 
describe it, and the history of the word leaves no room 
for doubt as to its meaning. We wish to review this 
history and then leave it to reasonable minds as to 

[83] 



what the weight of evidence favors. The Greek clas- 
sics, we are told, contain 168 examples wherein the 
word ^^baptizo" is used; and in every case the word 
means to put the object under the element, while the 
fluid remains stationary, or else to let the object re- 
main stationary, while the element completely over- 
whelms it. In every example the conception is the 
same, i. e., the object is entirely covered by the bap- 
tizing element. It is certain that all of the evidence 
given by these uses, is decidedly for immersion. Af- 
fusionists, as a rule, grant the evidences thus far, but 
say the word later broadened its meaning so as to 
convey the general idea of all ceremonial purification 
by water. This is easy to say but impossible to prove. 
If such were really the case, there would certainly be 
at least a few clear and unmistakable examples some- 
where in the abundance of religious literature, that 
we have written in Greek. The Old Testament trans- 
lation describes, in Greek, all of the Jewish ceremo- 
nies and washings employed in their religious observ- 
ance but not once is the word *'baptizo*' used to 
describe any ceremony performed by sprinkling or 
pouring. The Mosaic code prescribes many ceremonies 
where sprinkling and pouring are to be employed, 
but the Greek translation of the Old Testament never 
so much as once uses the word ^'baptizo^' to describe 
any of these ceremonies. On the contrary it always 
uses the Greek word for sprinkling or pouring, corre- 
sponding to the original Hebrew. Furthermore, the 
word ^^baptizo'' is employed in the translation in such 

[84] 



a way as to show clearly that it means dip or immerse. 
2 Kings 5:14 employs ^'baptizo'' and the English 
translation tells us that Naaman went to the Jordan 
and ^^ dipped" himself. The Hebrew word is ^Habal'^ 
which always means to dip or immerse, and never once 
has the meaning of sprinkle or pour. Now since the 
word /'baptizo" is never used to describe any one of 
the many sprinklings and pourings mentioned in the 
Old Testament, but does use it where the Hebrew, 
without doubt, means immerse, is it not evident to any 
candid mind that '^baptizo'^ cannot be said to mean 
sprinkle or pour? If not, then clear usage of words 
counts for nothing. The Greek Old Testament, amid 
all of its directions for ceremonial washings, gives not 
even a shadow of evidence for defining ^^baptizo'' to 
^^ sprinkle'' or ^'pour,'' but on the other hand, shows 
clearly by its use of the word that it means to 
immerse. 

Witness of the Apocrypha 

Turning now to the Apocrypha, which was handed 
down to us in Greek, and contains a history of the 
Jews, covering a large portion of the time between 
Old and New Testament periods, no examples of *'bap- 
tizo'' are found where it means sprinkle or pour. 
Though our Pedobaptist friends claim two instances, 
still they can't find any scholars in the world who 
will so translate the word in these examples. The 
first example is Eccles. 34:25, where mention is made 
of washing the body after having touched a corpse. 

[85] 



The 19th chapter of Numbers is then cited by affu- 
sionists as proof that this cleansing was by sprinkling. 
The fallacy of this argnment, however, is readily de- 
tected by the careful reader. Note that the 19th chap- 
ter of Numbers distinctly says all of the sprinkling 
was done by some other person besides the one who 
was defiled. Then as a completion of the whole cleans- 
ing ceremony, the unclean person himself, shall '^wash 
his clothes and bathe himself in water.'' (Compare 
Lev. 22:4-6.) Besides there is no knowing whether 
Eccles. 34:25 has any reference to the 19th chapter 
of Numbers, but if it does, this latter bath is undoubt- 
edly what it refers to, since it reads, *^He that wash- 
eth himself"; referring to his own action, which was 
the crowning part of the ceremony of purification 
from a deady body. The second example is taken from 
Judith 12:7. ^^Then Holof ernes commanded his 
guard that they should not stay her, thus she abode 
in the camp three days and went out in the night into 
a valley of Bethulia and washed herself in a foun- 
tain of water by the camp." The last clause is the 
one containing the word *^baptizo" and the Greek 
reads thus: ^^ebaptizo en to parembole epi tes peges 
tou hudatos" — ^^she baptized herself in a fountain 
(or stream) of water by the camp." "Where affusion- 
ists claim their argument here, is by supposing that 
she didn't actually go into the water, and then by 
translating * ^ at the fountain ' ' instead of ' ^ in the foun- 
tain." The present writer has two standard English 
translations of the Apocrypha at hand, and both ren- 

[86] 



der '^epi tes peges ton hudatos'' — '*in the fountain of 
water. ' ' That this is the true translation may be seen 
readily by anyone who is only partially acquainted 
with Greek. Here '^epi" is used with the Genitive 
of place, and in such cases, with a verb of motion, may 
be rendered *^upon" if the place is an actual support, 
but must generally be rendered *4n." (Liddell and 
Scott's Standard Greek Lexicon, Eighth Ed.) It is 
rarely ever rendered ^^at" and for one to so disre- 
gard the natural use of the preposition merely to suit 
his theory, shows he is hard pushed indeed for even a 
straw of argument. 

Witness of Josephus 

After leaving the Apocrypha and before coming to 
the New Testament Greek, we are cited to one ex- 
ample in the Historical works of Josephus. Antiq. 
IV, 4:6, where the use of ''baptizo" is claimed to 
favor sprinkling. This truly is a mere claim, for the 
Greek there used shows no such meaning whatever. 
The passage reads thus: *^When therefore any per- 
sons were defiled by a dead body, they put a little of 
these ashes in it, they sprinkled them with it,'' etc. 
The mixture of ashes and water was sprinkled, after 
the ashes were dipped, i. e., baptized — in the water. 
Reference here to the original Greek shows not even 
the slightest ground for translating ^^baptizo" to 
sprinkle; and this is forcibly proven by the fact that 
no person who cares anything for his reputation as a 
Greek scholar can be found who will so translate it. 

[87] 



New Testament Witness 

The New Testament employs ^* baptize " something 
like 80 times, and in every instance it can be trans- 
lated ^ immerse'' instead of transferring the word 
** baptize/^ as is done in our English Bibles. And 
when the word is translated ^^ immerse," it always 
makes good sense; but on the other hand, if it is 
translated either ^'sprinkle" or ^^pour," it never 
makes good sense. The reader can prove this himself 
by turning to his English Bible and substituting the 
word * immerse" whenever he finds ^^baptizo," and 
then try to substitute ** sprinkle'' or ^^pour," and he 
will at once see that ^^ immerse'' is the right word. 
There is a law of language in translating which 
teaches us that when a word is found to fit in every 
case, that is the true word, and may with safety be 
relied upon to give the correct meaning of the original. 

In conclusion, there is not a standard lexicon of 
either classic or New Testament Greek that gives 
'^sprinkle" or ^^pour," as even a remote meaning of 
^^baptizo. " Besides, the Greek language is still 
spoken and written, and no native of Greece today 
would think of defining this word so that ^* affusion" 
could be gotten out of it. It is noted also that the 
Christians in Greece, as well as the entire Greek 
church, still baptize exclusively by immersion. Now 
in the presence of these unmistakable facts, are we 
not certain that our Saviour was Himself immersed; 
and that He commanded it upon His followers for all 

[88] 



m 



time? Surely it is just as certain as anything can be 
made in the light of scholarship and history; and he 
who would be excused from obeying this plain com- 
mand, can find nothing in all of God's Word to justify 
his course. When Christ commanded us to be bap- 
tized, He meant immersion and nothing else, since this 
alone constitutes Christian baptism, and *^thus it be- 
cometh us to fulfil all righteousness." 

The Preposition "en" Testifies 

Our pedobaptist friends often make complaint about 
the translation of the Greek preposition ^*en" by use 
of the English ''in,'' on the part of the makers of the 
American Standard Edition of the Bible. Let us see 
if this is really consistent. This translation is gen- 
erally considered by scholars to be the best English 
edition ever published. It was set forth as the work 
of scholars carefully chosen, and considered second 
to none in the world. The New Testament part of 
the revision was done by twelve men, eleven of whom 
were pedobaptists, and the other one a Baptist. It 
could hardly be claimed then that the one Baptist 
dominated the committee or determined the conclu- 
sion as to the translation, so as to make the reading 
favorable to immersion in the use of the preposition 
''en." 

Keference to the Greek text shows that this prepo- 
sition is used in connection with the word baptize 
some seventeen times. It is noted also that our Eng- 
lish preposition, "in," is the only one that will fit it 

[89] 



perfectly, and at the same time make good sense in 
every single instance when translated. The primary 
meaning of **en/' as every Greek scholar knows, is 
^'in," and according to the law of translation this 
rendering must always have the preference. In fact, 
nothing else can take its place till it has been tested 
and shown incapable of giving the correct sense of 
the original. Direct reference to the passages bear- 
ing on the subject, unmistakably reveals the fact that 
^4n" is the only possible rendering that could be made 
for each and every instance where the Greek has 
**en.'' Not only that, but it is the only rendering that 
is true to the original. 

Let us note some examples : Matt. 3 :11 reads in the 
original, ^'Baptizo en hudati — baptisei en pneumati 
hagio kai puri" — ^'I baptize in water — he shall bap- 
tize in the Holy Spirit and fire." John 1:26 and 31 
contain similar expressions about water baptism, while 
Luke 3 :16, John 1 :33, Acts 1 :5 and 11 :16 contain simi- 
lar expressions about Holy Spirit baptism. 1 Cor. 
12:13 also has a similar use of en, in speaking of the 
Spirit's baptism. Now the advocates of affusion tell 
us that in all of the above examples **en'' should be 
translated by the preposition *^with'' — hence, '*I bap- 
tize with water," ''He shall baptize with the Holy 
Spirit," etc. But when this rule is tested in all the 
passages on baptism, its weakness is shown. We note 
here a few examples: The Greek in Matt. 3:6 reads, 
' ' Ebaptizonto en to lordane potamo" — ''They were 
baptized of Him in the river Jordan." Mark 1:5 

[90] 



reads the same. Now if we translate *'en,'' so to read 
''with/' the following expression appears: ''They 
were all baptized of Him with the river Jordan. ' ' John 
3:23 reads: "loanes baptizon en Ainon'' — "John was 
baptizing in Aenon." Using "with" for "en," it 
reads, "John was baptizing with Aenon." Mark 1:4 
has, "Egeneto loanes ho baptizon en te eremo" — 
"John came who baptized in the wilderness." Een- 
dering "en," by "with," we have "John came who 
baptized with the wilderness." 1 Cor. 10: 2, reads, 
"Kai pantes eis ton Mousen ebaptisanto en te nephele 
kai en te thalasse" — "Were all baptized unto Moses 
in the cloud and in the sea." Here the preposition 
"en" is used twice. If translated "with," the sentence 
reads, "Baptized unto Moses with the cloud and with 
the sea." Colossians 2:12 contains this expression: 
" Suntaphentes auto en to baptismati" — "Buried with 
him in baptism." Substitute "with" for "en" and 
you have the reading, "Buried with him with bap- 
tism." 

The above examples show clearly the insurmount- 
able difficulty encountered by bending the preposi- 
tion, without warrant, from its natural course. The 
American revisers saw this difficulty, and very prop- 
erly translated it "in" throughout the entire lot of 
passages on baptism where "en" is used in the origi- 
nal, making it read "Baptize in water" — "In the Holy 
Spirit," etc. 

Pedobaptists often cite Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5 and 
11 :16 as proof that all of the passages should be trans- 

[91] 



I 



lated ''with water/' and ''with the Holy Spirit," in- 
stead of "in water," and "in the Holy Spirit." In 
these instances the Greek does not use the preposition 
"en," and so the claim is made that even where it is 
used in connection with baptism, it should be ren- 
dered, "with." The instrumental dative by no means 
forbids the translation of the Greek "en," by the 
English, "in." Water was the instrument used for 
the immersion, instead of something else, as oil, wine, 
or any other thing. One often hears the expression, 
"Crossed the river by boat," and yet never thinks 
of anything other than that the persons were in the 
boat. The point is, can the instrumental dative have 
its preposition rendered, "in"? Clearly yes, and the 
American revisers knew it well and did it consistently. 
Furthermore, this edition shows that scholarship is 
more and more laying aside prejudice aroused byll 
ecclesiastics, and looking for the truth, regardless of 
whose cherished theory falls. 



[92] 



CHAPTER X 

The Lord's Supper 

nPHE second ordinance of a scriptural church is the 
■■- Lord's Supper. Let it be borne in mind that Christ 
gave to His churches only two ordinances, via.: bap- 
tism and the memorial supper, and that both of these 
ordinances are entrusted to the local churches for 
their administration. Baptism came first and is prop- 
erly administered but once. The supper follows bap- 
tism and is to be observed from time to time by be- 
lievers who constitute His churches. 

Heresies innumerable and misunderstandings galore 
have arisen over the proper observance of this ordi- 
nance. But it must ever be remembered that it can 
be settled right only by measurement with the divine 
standard; any other standard of measure can be but 
passion or sentimentality. The religious soul will be 
satisfied with nothing short of true Scripture teaching 
on the subject. In our study of this ordinance let us 
be seekers after Christ's pattern, regardless of per- 
sonal preferences, preconceived opinions or popular 
misconceptions. The supper is a divine ordinance, 
entrusted to a divine institution, and its rightful ob- 
servance should be diligently sought by every disciple 
of our blessed Lord. It can not be emphasized too 
strongly that the supper is a church ordinance, ad- 

[93] 



ministered by individual churches, to baptized believ- 
ers only, and that it is not a mere fellowship ordi- 
nance, observed loosely to show how much we think of 
each other regardless of scriptural requirements for 
its proper administration. i i 

Its Institution 1 " 

The supper was instituted by our Lord Himself, and 
hence this makes its divine origin conclusive and its 
continued significance unmistakable. Three of the 
Gospels record the institution of the supper — Matthew 
26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20. The record 
is given also in one of the epistles, I Corinthians 11 :23- 
26. Then numerous references are given for its proper 
observance, all of which confirm the fact of its perma- 
nency as a monument erected within his churches to 
endure till the end of time, and all the while reminding 
Christ's followers of His atoning death on the Cross. 
It was on the momentous night of the betrayal, with 
the shadow of Calvary upon Him, and with the eleven 
faithful apostles gathered about the table where the 
passover meal had just been eaten that He gives this 
second ordinance for His churches. m\ 

The elements used were bread and wine, or the fruit 
of the vine. There is no special significance attached 
to the kind of wine, fermented or unfermented, as 
some contend, for we do not know the particular kind 
Jesus used on that night. Suffice it to say that it was 
''the fruit of the vine,'' and that is all now needed to 
meet the scriptural requirements, so far as the wine is 
concerned. 

[94] 



It is noted also that both elements used, i. e., the 
bread and the wine, were given to each communicant. 
There is not a scintilla of evidence in the Scripture 
that only the bread is to be distributed to the so-called 
laity, while the wine is to be given to the clergy. 
Matthew 26:27 and Mark 14:23 distinctly state that 
*'they all drank of it." I Corinthians 11:26 shows the 
same thing. The Roman Catholic claim that the wine 
is for the priests alone is not only unscriptural, but 
is antiscriptural. Baptists believe the Bible teaching 
as to the priesthood of the believer, and that all mem- 
bers of each church are to have the same rights and 
privileges in the observance of the memorial supper 
as in all things else, hence there can be no real ob- 
servance of the ordinance unless both elements are 
given to all the communicants. 

Administered by the Church 

The supper is distinctively a church ordinance, and 
can be administered properly only by the church. In 
other words, the church is Christ's appointed cus- 
todian of this ordinance. The church is charged with 
knowing and applying the rules for observing the 
supper, that are given in the New Testament. No 
church has the right to establish any terms for observ- 
ing the supper other than those given by Christ and 
His apostles. 

From the New Testament the prerequisites to par- 
ticipation in the supper may be learned. Had the 
direction there given been relied upon through the 

[95] 



ages by all of the professed followers of our Lord, 
the many hurtful heresies that have grown up around 
this ordinance would have been avoided instead of its 
becoming a magic charm in the hands of a supersti- 
tious and often unscrupulous clergy to awe or frighten 
an untaught constituency, on the one hand and low- 
ered to the level of a mere fellowship ordinance by 
sentimentalists on the other hand, it would be given 
its rightful place as a memorial of Christ's sacrificial 
death on the Cross. 



Four Scripture Requirements 



II 



The first prerequisite for participation in the sup- 
per is regeneration. Without this requirement not 
only is its observance meaningless as to its original 
intent, but is at the same time harmful to the partici- 
pant. *^For whosoever shall eat the bread and drink 
the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be 
guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. * ♦ * 
For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh 
judgment unto himself, if he discern not the Lord's 
body" (I Corinthians 11:27-29). The Lord's Supper 
was never given by the apostles to unbelievers. Bap- 
tists believe in and contend for a regenerate church 
membership and too much care cannot be exercised in 
this if the memorial supper is to be properly safe- 
guarded. 

The next scriptural requirement for admission to 
the supper is that of baptism. It is seen that the ordi- 
nance of baptism was instituted and administered 

[96] 



quite a while before the supper. Also it is seen that 
Christ puts baptism as first in order after disciple- 
ship (Matthew 2^:19, 20). This order was undeniably 
observed by the first Christians and the apostles 
(Acts 2:41, 46; 8:12, etc.). The standards of all de- 
nominations with only a few unimportant exceptions, 
confirm the Scripture order respecting the ordinances, 
i. e., baptism preceding the supper. 

The third scriptural requirement for participation 
in the supper is that of church membership. Since it 
is a church ordinance, observed by Christ's churches 
as such, it necessarily follows that membership in the 
church precedes communion. As a church family rite, 
the participants must first be members of that family. 
That it is a church ordinance observed by the churches 
is shown in the practice of apostolic days (Acts 20 :7 ; 
I Corinthians 11:18-34). Hence the supper cannot be 
observed apart from the church. Baptists refuse to 
administer it to individuals, at the bed of the sick, 
or in any manner where and when the church is ab- 
sent. The Eomanist view, practiced as well by some 
others, that the supper can be peddled around pro- 
miscuously by an officiating clergy is wholly without 
scriptural warrant, and perverts the ordinance from 
a memorial into a sacrament or channel by which di- 
vine grace is bestowed and made inherently efficacious 
in the preservation of salvation. 

The fourth requirement for participation in the 
Lord's supper is right living, or a godly walk. The 
Scripture is unmistakably clear on this, and for the 

[97] 



ordinance to be so prostituted that no moral test is 
required, as is largely the case on the part of those 
bodies whose ranks are filled with unconverted peo- 
ple, is most pitiable indeed. In apostolic times only 
those giving evidence of a regenerate heart were ad- 
mitted to the Lord's table (I Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 
Thess. 3:6, 11, 14). Thus it is seen that no scriptural 
terms for communion can be given apart from those 
connected with church membership. The local church 
is the only organized body known in the New Testa- 
ment and hence this is the only body in any way com- 
petent to have charge of the ordinances and pass upon 
the scriptural requirements for their administration. 
It is both logical and reasonable, as well as scriptural, 
that a church refuse to admit to the communion those 
whom it refuses to admit to membership within itself. 

Frequency of Observance 

The question as to how often the supper should 
be observed is one that is emphasized differently by 
various bodies of Christians. The Romanist view is 
wholly at variance with the Scripture teaching on the 
subject. They not only administer it with great fre- 
quency in their services, often several times on Sun- 
day, but also during special days and seasons, in a 
sort of clean-up campaign, and at the marriage altar 
and at the dying bed. Then there are those who are 
sticklers for observance of the ordinance every Lord's 
Day. Baptists leave the matter of its frequency to the 
local church to act as is deemed wise and reverent in 

[98] 



its observance. It is true that the Scriptures speak of 
its administration on *Hhe first day of the week'^ 
(Acts 20:7). There can certainly be no objection to 
this on the part of those who wish to so observe it, 
but to say it must be thus observed every Lord's Day 
to be scriptural is certainly wide of the mark. There 
were times when the early disciples observed the sup- 
per each day (Acts 2:42, 46), so if one is to become 
a literalist it appears that the ordinance should be 
observed every day in order to comply with the prac- 
tice of apostolic Christians. This is all settled easily 
and consistently by Paul's instruction to the Corinth- 
ian church, I Corinthians 11:25, 26, ^^This do as 
often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For 
as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye 
proclaim the Lord's death till he come." The point 
to be noted is to do it properly when it is done, 
whether each day, every Lord's Day, once per month 
or at other designated times as the individual church 
may elect. 

Its Significance 

It is indeed important to note the various views 
held by different denominations regarding the supper. 
There can be but one correct position as to the signifi- 
cance of the communion, and this is to be learned 
from the New Testament. Our Lord explicitly states 
the purpose of the ordinance when He gave it to his 
followers. After His crucifixion and ascension the 
supper took its rightful place in the churches purely 

[99] 



as a memorial portraying the Lord's death. Perver- 
sions of the ordinance are intimated even in apostolic 
days, and thus Paul writes to the Corinthian church 
regarding the matter (I Corinthians llrlSff). It is 
not surprising, then, that hurtful heresies should 
gather about this important rite after revelation 
ceased. As a matter of information, the average Chris- 
tian should be acquainted with the most prominent 
heresies regarding the supper. Then more important 
still is this knowledge that the false may be counter- 
acted and the true proclaimed. 

There are a half dozen or more views of the com- 
munion held by the larger denominations. Of these 
various positions held, we shall take note of the prin- 
cipal, or more important ones. It will be seen that 
some of them differ slightly, while others have a very 
wide difference. Practically all denominations but 
Baptists make communion a sacrament, thus at once 
distorting the original intent of the ordinance. A 
sacrament is an instrument or channel, by which, or 
through which, Christ and the benefits of His sacrifi- 
cial death are bestowed upon or applied to the recip- 
ients of the sacrament. 

This at once places within the hands of those em- 
powered by ecclesiastical authority to administer sac- 
raments, a terrifying power over the ignorant and 
superstitious. The Koman church claims seven sacra- 
ments, of which the Lord's Supper, called by them the 
Eucharist, is one. They claim that the bread and wine 
are, by priestly intervention, changed into the actual 

[100] 



body and blood of Christ, which now becomes a new 
offering of Christ's sacrifice, that transmits saving 
grace from God to the communicant. This reputed 
change is called '^transubstantiation." Such a doc- 
trine brings a mediator, namely, bread and wine, be- 
tween the soul and Christ — at the same time giving 
to the priest the power of life and death. This is noth- 
ing short of paganism, for physical and magical salva- 
tion is not Christianity. 

The Lutherans and High Church Episcopalians 
claim that the communicant partakes in the conse- 
crated elements the veritable body and blood of Christ 
**in and with the bread and wine," though the ele- 
ments themselves do not cease to be material. This 
is known as the doctrine of ' * consubstantiation, " 
which, like the Romanist view, changes the ordinance 
from a sign to a means of salvation. 

The Calvinistic view is that the supper is a sacra- 
ment and that participants who are believers receive 
the benefits of the new covenant, in that they are ap- 
plied in the sacrament. *'It is declared to be an effi- 
cacious means of grace — on the co-operation of the 
Holy Spirit." 

Then there are many peculiarities and irregularities 
for the ground is often shifted among pedobaptists 
in their various restatements of the case. Take the 
matter of kneeling at the altar for the communion — 
the Romanist originated it in his adoration of the 
host, which is the consecrated wafer, now deemed the 
actual living Christ present and elevated before the 

[101] 



people, who are to fall prostrate before Him. This, 
to be sure, is not true and is nothing short of idolatry. 
From this Roman custom the practice of kneeling at 
the altar for the communion has been retained by some 
of the pedobaptist denominations, and their history 
shows them close akin to the Roman church. Let it 
ever be remembered that when one kneels at a so-called 
altar to participate in the Lord's Supper he is but imi- 
tating the custom of the Roman church in his adora- 
tion of the host. 

From all of the above views of the supper Baptists 
dissent in toto or in part. The scriptural view is that 
this is but a memorial, commemorating Christ's death, 
His propitiatory work and the precious state of grace 
thus enjoyed by the believer. It is but a monument 
for all time to remind each passing generation of 
Christ's sacrificial death. It has within itself no sanc- 
tifying or regenerating power and the blessings re- 
ceived depend solely upon the faith of the communi- 
cant to appropriate Christ's finished work to his own 
soul's need. Thus it is that the supper expresses pri- 
marily the communicant's fellowship with Christ 
rather than with his brethren. Much of the talk about 
*' communing with each other" at the Lord's table is 
akin to blasphemy, for we go not to the communion 
to show our likes and dislikes for each other, but 
rather to commemorate the atoning death of our Lord 
and Saviour. 



[102] 



[Restricted Communion 

The Baptist position on the communion has given 
them what some choose to designate as a '* conspicu- 
ous isolation." What an amount of unjust oppro- 
jium has been heaped upon Baptists for their prac- 
'tice of '* close communion"! This usually comes from 
prejudice or lack of information, or both. When 
looked at fairly and reasoned through logically it is 
found to be utterly without foundation. Baptists be- 
lieve on this subject exactly what all other denomina- 
tions believe relative to the order of the two ordi- 
nances, namely, that baptism must always precede 
participation in the supper. The best authorities can 
be cited to prove that this is practically the universal 
belief of Christendom. Catholics, Episcopalians, Luth- 
erans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, 
etc., as well as Baptists, hold that none should be ad- 
mitted to the second ordinance who have not observed 
the first — all make baptism an indispensable qualifica- 
tion. Hence all are, strictly speaking, close commun- 
ionists. Up to this point, then. Baptists are not dif- 
ferent from others. The first real divergence appears 
in the Baptist position that Christian baptism is im- 
mersion of the believer in water, in the name of the 
Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It then becomes 
a matter of '* close baptism" rather than *' close com- 
munion." It should be noted in passing that in one 
respect pedobaptists carry their close communion far- 
ther than do Baptists, in that they refuse to admit to 

[103] 



the Lord's table a large class of their own members, 
viz. : baptized children. 

Its Logical Sequence 

The Scriptures reveal the fact that this second ordi- 
nance, like the first, is committed to the churches and 
enjoined upon the churches for its proper administra- 
tion. Hence the churches must be its custodian and 
guardian. It will be seen also that Baptists offer the 
communion to others on identically the same terms 
they receive it themselves. They make no demands, 
or set up no requirements for others that they them- 
selves have not already met. Then it follows that if 
others refuse to join with Baptists in these require- 
ments they debar themselves, and hence have no just 
cause for complaint that they are not admitted to the 
table. It must be kept in mind that communion is a 
church ordinance, and not an individual fellowship 
ordinance among Christians. The Scripture tells us 
that there must be unity of faith and purpose in the 
observance of the communion, else it cannot be ob- 
served (I Corinthians 11:18-20). Since there is such 
divergence of opinion as to the purpose and meaning 
of the supper among the various denominations, it is 
clear from Paul's injunction in the matter that open 
communion makes it impossible to eat the Lord's Sup- 
per. Take the case of a Catholic, an Episcopalian, a 
Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Baptist, etc., all holding 
different views as to the purpose of the supper, and 
should they decide to become liberal and sit down to 

[104] 



the table together, one would be taking it as the actual 
body and blood of Christ, another actually receiving 
Christ spiritually, though not materially, still another 
regarding it as a sacrament wherein are applied the 
benefits of Christ's sacrificial work, and still another 
observing it as but a memorial, there would be no 
agreement among them, thus no scriptural observance 
of the ordinance could be possible under such condi- 
tions. I Corinthians 11 :18-20 makes this clear beyond 
question: *^When ye come together in the church, I 
hear that divisions (Greek, schisms) exist among you 
— for there must also be factions (Greek, heresies) — 
when therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is 
not possible to eat the Lord's Supper." It will be 
observed that the stand Baptists take at this point is 
both scriptural and logical. 

Restricted communion is also necessary for church 
discipline. Excommunication certainly is meaningless 
unless it carries with it the right to exclude from the 
communion. I Corinthians 5:11 and II Thessalonians 
3:6 make this unmistakably evident. Open commun- 
ion gives an excluded person the right to come back 
to the Lord's table, regardless of his guilt, whether 
moral or heretical, or both. 

The rule for observance of the communion must be 
scriptural rather than sentimental. To admit persons 
to the communion whom'we refuse to admit to church 
membership is indeed sentimental rather than rational 
or scriptural. Even lodges which are purely human 
institutions do not accord to each other rights and 

[105] 



privileges upon their allegiance to an order of differ- 
ent rules and regulations. Should the church of our 
Lord be less particular? So long as the various de- 
nominations are so hopelessly divided over other ques- 
tions of doctrine, there is neither Scripture nor reason 
for a sentimental makeshift of being together in the 
communion. It is one of the chief ordinances of a 
New Testament church and must not and cannot be 
belittled. Baptists have always flourished most where 
they hold tenaciously to right observance of the ordi- 
nances, baptism and the Lord's Supper. Let none be 
disturbed as to pressure from without, so long as they 
are true within to the precepts and commands of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. Let no Baptist be intimidated or 
made ashamed by the sentimental cry of ^^ close com- 
munion," for it is according to both reason and Scrip- 
ture, and a course of procedure with a conscience void 
of offense toward God maketh none to be ashamed. 



[106] 



CHAPTER XI 

Christian Missions 

nPHE missionary idea is to give the gospel to each 
•*• individual soul that is without Christ, regardless 
of where he lives, whether at home or abroad. The 
various designations usually employed, as Home, State 
or Foreign are merely for convenience in the mission- 
ary propaganda, and one is no more important than 
the other, for the appeal is world-wide, and the gos- 
pel is to be preached from our own doors to the ends 
of the earth. Christian missions are to be found at 
the very taproot of Christianity itself. The plan of 
God has ever been the salvation of the world; *Ho 
make all men see what is the dispensation of the mys- 
tery which for ages hath been hid in God, who created 
all things" (Eph. 3:9). There is no nation or tribe 
on all the face of the whole earth that is to be left 
out of the design of God for the salvation of the hu- 
man race. In prophecy the thought of the universal- 
ity of salvation runs like a golden thread through all 
of the Old Testament, and bursts into a glorious light, 
bright as the noonday sun in the New Testament. It 
first becomes an actual offer of salvation to all nations 
by the sending forth of messengers upon the command 
of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 
24:46-48; John 20:21). 

[107] 



4> 



For one to disclaim the missionary intent of Chris- 
tianity is to disbelieve the plain words and commands 
of our Lord, or else to remain in total ignorance of 
His teaching. It will be noted also, that because of 
the fundamental character of Christianity as a mis- 
sionary religion, missions are of necessity the very 
law of life for the churches of Christ. His churches 
are missionary churches, and are to remain so to the 
end of time. It must never be forgotten that the 
Christian nations of today were originally heathen, 
and would have remained so, had it not been for mis- 
sions. It necessarily follows that the nations that are 
yet heathen will remain so, until enlightened by the 
missionaries of the Cross. No church, and no indi- 
vidual is true to self, nor to Jesus Christ that fails in 
the missionary obligation. 

Apostolic Missions 

Every reader of the New Testament becomes cogni- 
zant of the most intense missionary zeal shown in 
Apostolic times. The whole body of believers were 
practically missionary, evincing a zeal for universal 
salvation. Our Lord Himself toured the regions round 
about proclaiming the gospel of salvation, first to the 
lost sheep of the house of Israel, then to all classes, 
kindreds, tribes and tongues. He trained His early 
followers to be messengers of salvation, and sent them 
forth to declare the healing message. Step by step 
were they led from the narrow confines of Judaism 
to a holy passion for the souls of men everywhere to 

[108] 



be brought into saving relationship with God. His 
death on the cross was the one atonement for sinning 
and suffering humanity the world around. Thus the 
necessity for His messengers to carry the news of this 
provision to the ends of the earth in each succeeding 
generation. Then in His ascension to the Father, His 
parting admonition to His followers was in the form 
of a command to ^^go into all the world and preach 
the Gospel to every creature/' This command has 
never been annulled, and is today the clarion call to 
His churches everywhere, to evangelize the world. 

In Apostolic times by means of individual conver- 
sions, and the founding of churches, the missionary 
idea progressed from beneath upward, until it became 
the mightiest moral and religious force the world has 
ever known. As New Testament Christians, Baptists 
are ever to hear and heed the call of their divine Lord. 
Every true Baptist is a missionary Baptist, and every 
true Baptist church is a missionary church. 

Baptists and World Evangelization 

Baptists have always believed that the world is to 
be won to Christ after the Apostolic order. The great- 
est blight that Christianity has ever had was caused 
by political alliance with the state under Constantine, 
and onward until the present time in some parts of 
the world. From then onward measures were taken 
for the violent suppression of heathenism, and the 
official favoring of Christianity in its place. Thus the 
pure Gospel of Apostolic days passed into an eclipse 

[109] 



that was almost total as it culminated in the Dark 
Ages. Happily God always preserves His chosen few, 
as in the days of Elijah, to be called into action at 
the right time. Baptists are the pioneers of modern 
evangelical missions. In October, 1792, the first mis- 
sionary society, other than Romanist, in the Anglo- 
Saxon world was born. This was in response to God^s 
call to William Carey, a Baptist minister at Kittering. 
The story of his call, struggles at home and abroad 
cannot be inserted here in lengthy detail. Suffice it to 
say that the Baptists, through William Carey, were 
the father of modern missions, and that his triumphs 
were so great that after thirty years of labor he had 
translated the Bible, or parts of it, into thirty-four 
different languages, and with his colleagues had ren- 
dered the word of God accessible to one- third of the 
human race. 

In America, Baptists participated in forming the 
first missionary society in 1796, known as the New 
York Missionary Society. ^'This appears to have been 
a sort of co-operative effort by members of the Bap- 
tist, Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed Churches.'' A 
few months following, these same denominations 
formed what was termed the ^* Northern Missionary 
Society." The object of these societies was to sup- 
port preachers among the North American Indians, 
but did not extend their operations to the great 
heathen world beyond. The second distinctively mis- 
sionary society for foreign missions was formed by 
the Baptists in 1814, known as the ** Baptist Mission- 

[110] 



ary Union/' which became famous for large and ag- 
gressive evangelical work. The conversion of Judson 
and Rice to Baptist principles after their appointment 
by the Congregational Board brought the Baptist Mis- 
sionary Union into existence. Judson and wife re- 
mained upon the foreign field, while Rice came home 
to arouse the churches to their obligations, and his 
familiar figure became known among Baptists almost 
from one end of the land to the other. The work of 
Judson through nearly forty years laid a foundation 
both large and durable in a stronghold of Buddhism. 
*^ Numerous converts, a corps of trained native assis- 
tants, the translation of the Bible and other valuable 
books into Burmese and his almost completed Bur- 
man-English dictionary were some of the direct fruits 
of his thirty-seven years of missionary service.'' 

Another notable achievement in the Baptist mission- 
ary work was that of Dr. and Mrs. John E. Clough 
among the Telegus. The work was first founded in 
1836, and after seventeen friutless years and when the 
work was about to be abandoned, the Cloughs were 
sent to the field. Their work, after strenuous effort, 
was rewarded in one of the most marvelous mass move- 
ments in the history of evangelical missions. On a 
single day a thousand converts brought their idols to 
be destroyed, while at another time 2,222 were im- 
mersed in one day. Within a space of ten days nearly 
nine thousand had professed their faith in Christ. In 
China, Baptists were among the early evangelical mis- 
sionaries, and have done and are doing a notable work 

[111] 



in the celestial empire. No effort can here be made 
to give a detailed history of Baptist missions. SuflSce 
it to say, some of their missionaries, as Carey, Jud- 
son and Clough, were epoch-makers in the world's 
history, and that now Baptists are more awake to the . 
divine call for missions than they have ever been, ^ I 
and have workers in almost every part of the earth, 
with ever-enlarging plans for world evangelization. 

Baptists Not Circumscribed 



4 



Christ's commission was to the whole world witn a 
whole Gospel. Baptists believe that they have a mis- 
sion such as no other people on the earth have, in that 
they are to proclaim a Gospel full with the Scripture 
tenets, and free from every taint of sacerdotalism. It 
is salvation by grace alone, that will save a sin-cursed 
world. It is the doctrines, the ordinances and the 
life, full and free from any and all extra-scriptural 
and anti-scriptural teachings, which Baptists offer to 
the world. Thus it is that they cannot agree to union- 
ism in its various phases in missionary enterprises, 
such as union schools as permanent arrangements, or 
the parcelling out of territory among the denomina- 
tions, thereby shutting themselves forever out of any 
given territory. Some call this bigotry and narrow- 
ness, while it is in fact but a conscientious loyalty on 
the part of the Baptists to the Gospel of the Lord 
Jesus Christ as they believe it. The great commission 
is to all the world, in all time, with the whole Gospel, 
and not just a part of it, or a perverted Gospel. The 

[112] 



I 



Baptist appeal must ever be ''Christ for all the world, 
and all the world for Christ. ' ' * ' Go ye, therefore, and 
make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I command you, and lo, I am with you always, 
even unto the end of the world/' 



[113] 



CHAPTER XII 
Education 



4 



T^llE most important task of each preceding genera- 
•*• tion is to make proper provision for the education 
of the succeeding generation. The ancients furnish 
us many examples ot* their educational systems from 
lowest to highest. They fancied they knew what was 
in man, but it is noticeable that they failed to provide 
for all his wants. The intellect and body were given 
much attention, but it has been reserved for Christian- 
ity to give the highest and truest form of education 
the world has ever known. It is indeed a sad sight 
when a great intellect is marred by vicious tastes and 
feelings for lack of having been trained under the 
sanctifying influence of the Spirit of God, where its 
manifold powers might have been unfolded, and so 
developed as to realize its highest possibilities. The 
churches of Christ and Christian schools are natural 
allies, and should go hand in hand in regenerating and 
training the masses. 

Religion the Mother of Education 

In all of the history of the past it is seen that re- 
ligion is the seed plot of education. This is true, 
whether among heathen, Jew or Christian. It is noted 
also that no form of religion reaches its highest ex- 

[114] 



pression without trained exponents of its principles. 
Every great religion of tlie world today that has en- 
dured through the centuries and affc^cted any consider- 
able portion of the human race has i)rovided its course 
of training, especially for its priests and various other 
ministrants. It is a notable fact also that schools 
established under the auspices of the (christian sys- 
tem were primarily for affording adequate prepara- 
tion for ministerial students and their helpers in Chris- 
tian service. These later developed into institutions 
designed to care for both young men and women gen- 
erally who might seek higher learning. It must be 
noted also that early Christian colleges were the dis- 
seminating centers of learning in the pioneer days of 
our national life. American education as rated at x>res- 
ent owes more to religion than to all other forces and 
agencies together. Religious schools were indeed the 
pathfinders in educational progress. 

Christian Education 

The doctrine of education is unmistakably taught in 
the Scriptures. Prom the patriarchs on down through 
Israel itish history teaching has a dominant place in 
God's plan for the redemption of the race. In Deu- 
teronomy, fourth chapter, Moseys lays special stress on 
what he, under God, had taught the nation and urges 
faithful adherence to those teachings in the future 
development of their national life. Moses himself was 
one of the most highly trained men of his day, and 
thus knew the value of education for his own people. 

[115] 



II 



The dominant note of teaching runs through the entire 
Old Testament and is equally prominent in the New 
Testament. Jesus was Himself pre-eminently a teacher 
(Matthew 7:29) and everywhere He went **He taught 
the people." In the great commission, shouted back 
to earth by the ascending Lord, He laid upon His fol- 
lowers the necessity of 'teaching all nations," from 
the standpoint of Himself as the center of all knowl- 
edge and wisdom. There is no mistake as to the teach- 
ing note being sounded all through the New Testa- 
ment. (See John 6 :2, Matthew 28 :20, Acts 15 :35, Ro- 
mans 12:7, Colossians 1:28, etc.) After our Lord's as- 
cension His disciples went throughout the land, 
''teaching and preaching the word of the Lord." 

Christian education is the only kind that trains lives 
from all angles for the highest and most worthy ca- 
reer. The goal of education should be to give that 
kind of knowledge which makes for the largest useful- 
ness in the most wholesome liberties and the fullest 
happiness of the individual himself as well as all other 
lives touched by him. History demonstrates beyond 
question that the state cannot with safety assume the 
whole task in the education of the masses. The logical 
conclusion of such procedure is a materialism which 
largely eliminates God and whose fruitage is militar- 
ism of the most dominating kind. Only the Gospel of 
Christ is adequate for all social, state and national 
problems, as it is woven into the very warp and woof 
of all human relationships, from those of individuals 
in the home and community neighborhood on to the 

[116] 



mightiest governments of earth. It is always lack of 
conscience rather than of intelligence that constitutes 
a country's chief danger, and Christian education is 
the only agency able to supply a high intelligence 
guided by an unimpeachable conscience for each suc- 
ceeding generation. It is a demonstrable fact as per- 
tains both to individuals and nations that training of 
the wrong sort is worse than none at all. Minds 
schooled in error too often have an impregnable wall 
about them. Mohammedanism is a striking case in 
point. The circumspect mind no longer believes that 
all education of whatever kind is good, and the more 
the better, for now the world has learned that educa- 
tion in the wrong direction but leads to disastrous 
results. It is a striking fact that a far greater per 
cent of the products of Christian schools rise to places 
of preferment than do the products of purely secular 
institutions. Hence it is that the nation which expects 
to attain and maintain greatness must give large place 
for private and Christian schools, co-operating with 
her state schools, so as to make education safe and 
popular for all the people. 

Baptists and Education 

In a special way are Baptists obligated to foster 
education. They have a distinct message which can- 
not be delivered by others. Their belief in salvation 
by grace, the non-sacramental character of the ordi- 
nances, the democracy or self-government of the 
churches, requires that degree of intelligence neces- 

[117] 



sary for right understanding of these things and fit- 
ness for self-government. Since Baptists do not be- 
lieve in any episcopal or overhead authority, but in 
the priesthood of the believer, hence a spiritual leader- 
ship and an educated ministry are quite necessary for 
their highest success in the world. 

In the history of education Baptists have played a 
large and honorable part. They have helped to lay 
solid foundations and to insure a fruitful develop- 
ment. They were among the real pioneers of educa- 
tion in America. Harvard University, the oldest insti- 
tution of learning in America, founded in 1636, was 
named for the man who gave the first money for its 
establishment, and that man was a Baptist. From that 
day to this Baptists have had no small part in the 
progress of education in this country. In 1736 men- 
tion is made of a Baptist academy founded at Hop- 
well, N. J. In 1764 the first enduring Baptist school 
was established in America — Brown University — now 
one of the oldest, as well as one of the most honorable 
institutions of learning in the whole land. Through 
the years Baptists have continued to play a most im- 
portant part in educational affairs throughout the 
world. At the present time there are near to three 
hundred Baptist schools in this country. From these 
institutions go out thousands of students each year to 
put their character and best thoughts into our national 
life. 

There was a time when it was charged that Baptists 
were an ignorant people, but no longer can such a 

[118] 



charge be made justly against them. True, they have 
no special educational tests for their ministers before 
they are allowed to preach, since the Bible makes 
none, but they do more and more encourage their min- 
isters to be satisfied with nothing short of the best 
training obtainable. That Baptists now have an edu- 
cated ministry is manifest on every hand. There is 
no other denomination in the United States today that 
has as many educated ministers as have Baptists. In 
addition to their great force of educated ministers, 
they have a mighty army of fairly well educated who 
are truly taught of God and are doing mighty things 
toward the spread of the Kingdom on the earth. 

Baptists schools today are shaping the lives of many 
thousands of our brightest and best young people, fit- 
ting them to take their places in all phases of com- 
mercial, professional and religious life. Much of the 
world 's wealth is now entrusted to Baptists and states- 
men from lowest to highest official position in our fair 
land are serving their country with efficiency and 
honor. No longer can Baptists be stigmatized as igno- 
rant and inefficient, for they have proven the doctrine 
of Christian education by their established schools the 
country over. 

Finally, belief in Christian education should be prac- 
ticed in all of our Baptist homes. This should express 
itself in maintaining our schools with the highest 
standards of educational requirements, and by select- 
ing these schools for our boys and girls that in a truly 
Baptist and Christian atmosphere they may receive 

[119] 



their training for service to the world of mankind. 
Roger Babson well says: ^^The crying need of this 
hour is not more factories or materials, not more rail- 
roads or steamships, not more armies or navies, but 
rather more religious education. The prosperity of 
our country depends upon the motives and purposes 
of the people. These motives and purposes are 
directed in the right course only by religion. Legisla- 
tion, bounties, force, are of no avail in determining a 
man's attitude toward life. Religion, like everything 
else of value, must be taught. It is possible to get 
more religion in industry and business only through 
the development of religious education. With the 
forces of evil backed by men and money, systemati- 
cally organized to destroy, we should back with men 
and money campaigns for religious education." 

Of all the people in the world, then, who should 
foster Christian education. Baptists are the people. 
Their advocacy of democracy in its finest and truest 
sense makes enlightenment of the masses necessary 
for their peace, prosperity, happiness and highest gen- 
eral welfare, and Christian education is the only 
agency that can give this enlightenment. 



[120] 



CHAPTER XIII 

Baptists and Co-operation 

nPHE purely democratic form of government of Bap- 
-*- tist churches makes the matter of co-operative 
effort both among themselves and in relation to others, 
different from all other denominations. We often hear 
it said that Baptists are bound together with a rope 
of sand which deprives them of coercive power, and 
largely annuls all co-operative effort. True they are 
devoid of compelling power on the part of ecclesiasti- 
cal overlords, but are unlimited as to their liberties 
and opportunities along co-operative lines. It has 
been well said that the democratic form of church 
government as practiced by Baptists is the best in 
the world for regenerated people, but the worst in the 
world for unregenerated folks. This is undoubtedly 
true and is clearly demonstrated all through the his- 
tory of Christianity. There are three points of con- 
tact in religious co-operative effort, that are vital to 
Baptists, viz: Co-operation among themselves, with 
other denominations, and with the State, or govern- 
ment. Brief consideration of these points will be given. 

Co-operation Among Themselves 

Baptists oppose undue centralization of power in 
both church and state, hence it at once becomes mani- 
fest that the voluntary principle must control in all 

[121] 



of their general organizations. Baptists have no 
gradations of ecclesiastical courts, — not even delegated 
authority is allowed among them. The church is the 
unit of authority, having its own sovereign rights 
which cannot be delegated to any other organization, 
nor superseded by another body. This forestalls all 
legislative or judicial powers on the part of general 
bodies. The Scriptures are the all sufficient rule of 
faith and practice, and the churches alone exercise 
authority in all matters of discipline and the manage- 
ment of their own affairs. 

It necessarily follows then that all general organi- 
zations are limited to the desire of the local churches 
in co-operation with them. The extent of this co-opera- 
tion depends largely upon the purpose of the general 
organizations, and the degree of enlightenment on the 
part of the churches. Associations and conventions 
have no real reasons for their being, other than that 
of arousing, combining, and directing the objects fos- 
tered by the New Testament Churches, as missionary, 
educational, and benevolent endeavor in the upbuild- 
ing of God's Kingdom in the world. While co-opera- 
tion in these enterprises is purely voluntary, yet it is 
evident to every thoughtful person that little of ex- 
tensive achievement and lasting worth would be ac- 
complished without it. This is evidenced by the fail- 
ure of various churches at different times that do not 
co-operate in Kingdom extension to really do anything 
worthy of notice. Since the question of co-operation 
with general bodies is not a matter of authority, but 

[122] 



a voluntary principle, individual churches usually co- 
operate or not, according to their vision and leader- 
ship. Yet again, it must be remembered that the gen- 
eral bodies can act upon the churches in an advisory 
way only, and also that the churches cannot delegate 
their powers or authority to the general bodies. This 
being true these general bodies are a law unto them- 
selves, and are free to change rules and regulations 
required by changing conditions and general expan- 
sion of the work. They can advise churches and rec- 
ommend plans to the denomination at large, but there 
their powers end. 

Another phase of co-operation among Baptists is 
that of mutual helpfulness in ordinations and disci- 
pline. Any church may request the assistance of other 
churches for forming ordaining presbyteries in the 
setting apart of elders and deacons, and also in the 
formation of advisory councils in matters of discipline. 
These bodies are formed solely at the request of a local 
church, and their conclusions are recommendations 
only which may be accepted or rejected by the church 
calling for their services. Baptists have no gradations 
of church courts. The local church is of itself a sov- 
ereign body clothed with all the rights and privileges 
for the regulation of its own affairs, and from its 
decisions there is no appeal. 

Co-operation Necessary 

That wholesome co-operation among Baptists is 
necessary for the largest Kingdom results no thought- 

[123] 



ful person will deny. All of our associations and con- 
ventions are founded upon the principle of wholesome 
and in the main, harmonious co-operation. In this way 
worthy programs are made and carried out. The in- 
dividual church, as well as the individual member thus 
becomes the champion of all phases of the work. The 
various objects fostered for both denominational effi- 
ciency and Kingdom enlargement are gotten before all 
of our people and a chance given them for enlistment 
in the support of these objects. It follows also that 
disintegrating forces are counteracted, and a denomi- 
national consciousness is created. All past experience 
confirms the fact that there can be little progress made 
toward Kingdom extension apart from hearty co-oper- 
ation on the part of Baptists. Those churches which 
refuse to co-operate with their sister churches in the 
furtherance of Christ's Kingdom on earth, for what- 
ever excuse they may offer, will sooner or later die 
because of their own inactivity, or drift into heretical 
organizations and finally break with the denomina- 
tion. In the service of our common Lord there is ever 
to be a feeling of comradeship, and a fellowship among 
those who wear the denominational name. In this way 
indifference and antagonism to the work are overcome 
on the one hand, and a devotion for, and loyalty to 
the faith we hold becomes the very breath of our 
religious being, on the other hand. 
Co-operation with Others 

Baptists are often misunderstood because they limit 
their co-operation with other religious bodies. They 

[124] 



refuse to lose their own identity, or surrender their 
autonomy for the sake of unionism and its kindred 
phases in religious enterprises. Baptists are not 
against Christian union upon a scriptural basis, but 
are rather champions of such union. There are many 
points of common interest where all evangelical Chris- 
tians can and should co-operate. This is seen in pre- 
senting a united front against the liquor traffic, social 
evils, corruptness of political demagogues and the 
question of the community well-being when any evil 
threatens to destroy its peace, health, or happiness. 
Baptists have ever co-operated with others for the 
overthrow of wickedness and the enthronement of 
righteousness from the smallest circle of society to the 
ends of the earth. 

Co-operation with the State 

As a fountain cannot rise above its source, so can- 
not the grandeur of the state rise above its source of 
moral strength. Revealed religion is the refreshing 
stream in any and all nations that brings and pre- 
serves moral life. In all civilizations political life is 
the outgrowth of religious life. Be the religion bad 
then the civic life is bad also — on the other hand when 
the religious factor is wholesome and elevating, so are 
political movements of the highest order. The con- 
tention of Baptists in their relation to the state is for 
soul freedom full and complete. This given, the high- 
est and best political and social order is insured. Po- 

[125] 



litical and religious life travel parallel roads, but 
neither one is to usurp the authority of the other. 
In the earliest confessions Baptists declared for sepa- 
ration of church and state, and have been the world's 
most stalwart champions through the centuries of this 
liberating doctrine. This principle denies the right of 
any religious institution or order to be supported by 
the state, in whole or in part. Baptists were the prime 
factors in early American life which prevented an 
alliance between church and state. They steadfastly 
refused to be a party to receiving state aid in the sup- 
port of religion, both for themselves and all others. 
It will be noted that they have consistently adhered 
to this principle in all localities and at all times. The 
world over, Baptists are and have ever been the cham- 
pions of the doctrine of the separation of church and 
state. 

In matters which have to do with civic purity, and 
national security, Baptists have an untarnished record. 
The world has never known truer patriots than lib- 
erty loving Baptists. They believe that they should 
put into the community life personal purity from 
which flowers and fruits the highest forms of civic 
righteousness. They believe in co-operating with the 
state for the fullest enlightenment of all its citizens, 
and for the highest functions of democracy in its body 
politic. And finally they believe in the fullest soul 
freedom for all alike and to this end they will ever 
co-operate, that the souls of men the world around 
may be free. 

[126] 



I 



CHAPTER XIV 

Religious Liberty 

nPHE present American doctrine of the entire sepa- 
-*• ration of church and state was once exclusively a 
Baptist doctrine. Until comparatively recent times 
the person who said that the magistrate had no right 
to interfere in strictly religious matters, was a Bap- 
tist. Now, to be sure the doctrine has become popu- 
lar and has spread to all religious bodies in our land, 
theoretically at least, and is destined to become preva- 
lent in all lands where the Gospel of our Lord is 
preached. So universal has this glorious principle be- 
come among the denominations of this country that 
it is hard now for many to realize that at one time 
only Baptists believed and advocated it. It is a fact, 
however, and their path through history is stained 
with blood and lighted with martyrs ' fires because they 
would not swerve from the doctrine of soul liberty, 
separate and apart from not only priestly interven- 
tion, but all civil authority as well. 

Opposition to Baptists 

History records the fact that in every land and by 
every other sect Baptists were opposed and persecuted. 
Antipathy for them was because of their rejection of 
infant baptism and opposition to the alliance of church 

[127] 



and state. It is shown also that Baptists for long 
years fought alone the battle for religious freedom, 
and won the boon for all, and hence have left the most 
glorious heritage of any people, since the victory came 
through great tribulation. The details of their suf- 
ferings for their convictions is one of the saddest re- 
citals of history, though at the same time one of the 
most inspiring for their piety and faithfulness. 

In Germany ^ ^ They were plundered, thrust into dun- 
geons, banished, and numbers of them beheaded or 
burned alive.'' In Hungary and Bohemia, King Fer- 
inand issued an edict entitled ^^ Death to the Baptists," 
in which it was decreed that ^'Persons, male or fe- 
male, being of ripe years and understanding should 
be deprived of life, if baptized." 

The Emperor Charles V., evinced his malignity by 
procuring civil edicts at German Diets. In 1544, when 
other dissenters were treated with leniency, severe 
measures were adopted against the Baptists. In 
Switzerland matters were no better. During the year 
1525 an edict was issued by the Magistracy prohibit- 
ing believers' baptism, and enjoining infant baptism, 
threatening imprisonment or banishment for the dis- 
obedient. In 1526 Zwingle approved the order that 
those who submitted to rebaptism, should '^be drowned 
without mercy." In the Netherlands the oppressor's 
hand was heavy upon Baptists. They were put to 
death by sword and fire, and when in 1550 the Inqui- 
sition introduced by Charles V into the Netherlands 
had to be relaxed because of the remonstrances of the 

[128] 



people, there was no relaxation toward the Baptists, — 
on the contrary, ''Protestants and Papists united to 
persecute them/^ In these persecutions no regard was 
paid ''to sex, station, or age. The delicate maiden, 
the honored minister, the venerable confessor of three- 
score and ten," suffered alike; and let it not be for- 
gotten that these sufferings were not for crimes of any 
sort, but were for religious "conviction/' 

Turning to England the same dark road was trav- 
eled by Baptists. Kings and queens, together with 
the highest church dignitaries, all conspired for the 
extermination of Baptists. This "was further shown 
by excepting them from general acts of pardon. Such 
acts were published in 1538, '40 and '50, but those 
who held that infants should not be baptized were 
excluded. Thieves and vagabonds shared the King's 
favor but Baptists were not to be tolerated." The 
harrowing scenes at Smithfield and in Newgate, and 
the fact that under the reign of Charles II Eng- 
land 's jails were filled with Baptist martyrs, need not 
be recited here, and while they add shame to the rul- 
ers in both church and state, they but give glory to 
our Baptist heritage. 

In the early history of America the same thorny 
path was trod by Baptists as in the old world. The 
Pilgrims supported their church and ministry by taxa- 
tion. The Puritans who landed ten years later had a 
law connecting church and state. It will be noted 
that the Pilgrims and Puritans came to the wilds of 
America to establish their own faitji, and to exclude 

[129] 



all others. In 1636 Roger Williams was banished, and 
before his arrest he had taken refuge among the In- 
dians, and *^for fourteen weeks knew not what bed 
or bread did mean.'' 

Massachusetts became a hotbed of persecution for 
many years to come. Baptists are familiar with such 
names as Obadiah Holmes, John Clark, and Joseph 
Crandall, Baptist ministers who suffered persecution 
for preaching the Gospel. President Dunster was re- 
moved from the presidency of Cambridge College be- 
cause he preached against infant baptism. Many Bap- 
tists in the colony had their lands and goods confis- 
cated because they refused to pay the *^ minister's 
tax,'' and for fifty years no man in Massachusetts 
could vote for their rulers unless he was a communi- 
cant in their churches. In Connecticut church and 
state were united as in Massachusetts. Every town 
must support an orthodox minister or suffer indict- 
ment by the grand jury. At Ashfield, in 1770, nearly 
four hundred acres of land belonging to Baptists were 
sold to pay the ^^ minister's tax." The whole history 
of the colony is that of religious persecutions of Bap- 
tists and others who did not conform to the established 
order of the state. 

Virginia, the mother of presidents, and now a great 
Baptist empire, stained her colonial history with the 
blood of persecuted Baptists. Laws were enacted by 
the government against dissent, made provision for 
building houses of worship, and supporting the clergy 
by taxation. Infant baptism was compulsory, as well 

[130] 



as attendance at public worship. The laws went so far 
also as to prevent preaching, celebration of mar- 
riage, and public worship by dissenters. Some Bap- 
tist ministers were arrested and imprisoned as va- 
grants, others pulled down from the stands and in- 
sulted, whipped and sent to jail for preaching the Gos- 
pel contrary to the order of the established church. 
History can never forget the grave James Ireland, 
formerly a Scotch Presbyterian, but now a Baptist, 
who was dragged from the stand while praying and 
imprisoned in Culpepper jail, where efforts were made 
to blow him up with gunpowder, also to poison him, 
then to suffocate him by burning brimstone at the 
door and window of his cell. He preached through 
the bars of that jail, which resulted in the conversion 
of many souls, and later when the jail was torn down 
a Baptist church was erected upon its ruins. Dr. 
Hawks, historian of the Episcopal church of Virginia, 
says ^'No dissenters in Virginia experienced for a time 
harsher treatment than did the Baptists. They were 
beaten and imprisoned, and cruelty taxes its ingenuity 
to devise new modes of punishment and annoyance. ' ' 

Up to the time of the American Revolution these 
heroic struggles for religious liberty were made and 
the many sufferings and indignities of our Baptist 
forefathers endured. 

Baptists, the Pioneers of Soul Liberty 

The first document ever written in modern times 
upon religious liberty was by Leonard Busher, a Bap- 

[131] 



list, back in 1614. As the following quotation clearly 
shows, he made a plea, not for mere ''toleration,'' 
but for complete religious liberty. Note the words: 
''That it may be lawful for every person or persons, 
yea, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Papists to write, dis- 
pute, confer and reason, print and publish any matter 
touching any religion, either for or against whomso- 
ever.'' These were the views of the Baptists of the 
day, for in 1611 a Baptist confession of faith was is- 
sued in London which said, "We believe that the 
magistrate is not to meddle with religion, or matters 
of conscience, nor compel men to this or that form 
of religion, because Christ is the King and Lawgiver 
of the church and of the conscience." All sorts of 
documents by the religious sects preceded this by gen- 
erations, but it was left to the persecuted Baptists 
alone to proclaim the doctrine of soul freedom in both 
church and state. No others in those days advocated 
religious liberty. John Milton was another noble 
champion of Baptist liberty and in 1659 wrote a 
"Treatise of the Civil Power in Ecclesiastical causes, 
showing that it was not lawful for any power on earth 
to compel in matters of religion." 

The first document written on this continent advo- 
cating full religious freedom, was by Roger Williams 
in 1644. He had previously been banished from Massa- 
chusetts and founded the colony of Rhode Island, 
which was "the first civil government on earth that 
gave equal liberty of conscience." The organic law 

[132] 



1 



of the Baptist Colony said, **No person within the said 
colony at any time hereafter, shall be anywise mo- 
lested, punished, disquieted or called in question for 
any difference of opinion in matters of religion, but 
that all and every person and persons, from time to 
time, and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have 
and enjoy his and their judgment and conscience in 
matters of religious concernment." In Virginia the 
Baptists never let up in their efforts for religious lib- 
erty full and complete, rather than mere toleration. 
They appointed committees, memorialized legislatures 
and employed counsel, and finally, June 12, 1776, these 
principles were incorporated in the Bill of Rights, 
granting religious freedom of conscience. During the 
struggles in Virginia, when all other denominations 
agreed to taxation, with a division of the funds to 
support all alike, Baptists stood alone in opposition 
to it, and won the day. After the adoption of the 
Constitution of the United States, many felt that re- 
ligious liberty was not safeguarded fully, and the 
Baptist General Committee of Virginia took the ques- 
tion up with President Washington, who gave to them 
a kind and encouraging reply, and the following 
month Virginia proposed that immortal first amend- 
ment to our constitution, which was adopted and 
reads, '* Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise 
thereof." The seed planted by the Baptist martyrs 
through centuries past had at last flowered and fruited 

[133] 



in our national constitution, in which religious free- 
dom might be offered to the human race. 

The Baptist Heritage 

What a glorious heritage indeed have the Baptists! 
They have come up through great tribulations. They 
have sealed their faith with their blood in almost every 
land beneath the stars. They have been fuel for 
martyrs' fires for Catholic and Protestant alike in the 
dark days of persecution. They have been imprisoned, 
fined, whipped, and banished, all for conscience sake, 
and yet they have never so much as one time anywhere 
on the face of the earth persecuted another sect. On 
the contrary, they have ever been the champions of 
soul liberty for all alike, whether Christian, Jew, or 
even infidel. They have never swerved from the doc- 
trine of complete separation of church and state. 
They have steadily opposed priestcraft in all of its 
phases, and advocated salvation by grace rather than 
by sacraments or works. They have contended con- 
sistently for the proper setting of the ordinances, and 
the priesthood of the believer. They have ever been, 
and still are the most liberal body of Christians in 
the world, claiming nothing for themselves that they 
do not freely accord to others. It is a noteworthy 
fact that they have gro^vn from the most insignificant 
to the strongest in America today, and are destined 
to sweep over the world as its truest and swiftest 
messengers of soul liberty for every race and tongue. 
We, the heirs of this glorious heritage should for 

[ 134 ] 



Jesus' sake be ready with hands, and tongue, money 
and sacrifice to bear the glad news to every land until 
the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as 
the waters cover the sea. Let every Baptist the world 
around say, ^^Here am I, Lord, send me, send me." 



[135] 






RD-83 







\ 




%,.** /Jte-. "\/ .-^v^ %/ • Jfe- 











'^. 















.'^ .. 






j.^'v. 




*.. •♦T*,.- .«,* 




V .•> 




^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 



i ^ * -• "^ ^0 i* /lO^ ^ ^ Cranberry Township. PA 16066 

Vj. . ^ *JflfW^^ * .. -a!* (724)779-2111 



PreservationTechnologies 

0_ "o • » '' A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 









r^. 














<^^ * 







-Ho^ 



.\ 



♦ \^ o 



■^i»> 






\. '"^^-r** 



a" V, •..'• ^^ o »,T.' .0-' V ^'Tr^'' 



*>i* 1*^ 
"^v^^ 



■^-^^^* * 






p* 

% 



. . • * ,c 










^•^-0^ 

^^°^ 



C" ♦ 



. '^'o 






:^; 



















j^ , 



^^ 



. • • . "^ 



v^. 



NOV 81 ,s'''"V '. 



«v <>: 



K ".r^-'-^^ 



-^ FLA. ., ,„ <.^__ ^,^ _^^_,^ V .*^ . 



'.\ 



^ 32084 



C" ♦ 



